Documents in respect of nature of duties performed by a Colonel were denied u/s 8(1)(j) claiming that employee’s performance is primarily a matter between the employee & employer - CIC: denial upheld as no larger public interest is involved in disclosure
11 May, 2014FACTS
Vide RTI dt 4.7.13, appellant had sought copies of certain documents in respect of four issues and nature of duties performed by Col Rohit Jha in MH, Nasirabad on 17.5.13.
2. PIO HQ 374, Composite Artillery Brigade, vide letter dt 29.7.13, denied information u/s 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. .
3. An appeal was filed on 3.8.13 questioning the denial of information.
4. AA vide order dt 29.8.13, upheld the decision of the PIO and disposed of the appeal.
5. Submissions made by the appellant and public authority were heard.
DECISION
6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande dated October 3, 2012 has observed that the performance of an employee/officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression “personal information”, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the CPIO is satisfied that larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.
7. The above directions are applicable to the present appeal and as no larger public interest is involved, the denial of information u/s 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act is upheld. The appeal is disposed of.
(Rajiv Mathur)
Central Information Commissioner.
Citation: Shri K. Ajan v. Composite Artillery Brigade in File No.CIC/SS/A/2013/002864/RM