Appellant wanted copies of the correspondence contained in the file dealing with his complaint against a public servant for producing fake B.A. degree certificate - CIC: information is exempt from disclosure unless larger public purpose is demonstrated

Appellant had lodged a complaint against a public servant for producing fake B.A. degree certificate -He wanted copies of the correspondence contained in the relevant file in which the matter has been dealt with - CIC: decision information relating to a complaint against public servant & action taken thereon is exempt unless larger public purpose is demonstrated

Information sought:-

The appellant wants the attested copies of correspondence resting with your office letter bearing No. CGIT-LC/BNG/DA/2013-14/196 dated 14/06/2013 addressed to Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi, on the subject of “Complaint against Sh. BVS Sastry, UDC of CGIT-LC, Bangalore by Shri. Zahur Mulla Office Superintendent, O/o DY. CLC(C), Bangalore received through Central Vigilance Commission dated 09/11/2012” along with Annexure/enclosure if any.

Grounds for the Second Appeal: The CPIO denied the information under Section 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 2005.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on 18/12/2014: The following were present

Appellant: Mr. Zahur Mulla through VC M: 09972150326

Respondent: Sh. B V S Sastry through VC M: 09845300557

The appellant stated that he had lodged a complaint on 09/11/2012 against Shri BVS Sastry for producing fake B.A. degree certificate and a report was sent by the respondent to the Under Secretary, Ministry of Labour vide letter dated 14/06/2013 and he wants copies of the correspondence contained in the relevant file in which the matter has been dealt with. He pointed out that his complaint is against Shri B V S Sastry the CPIO who has denied the information and the Commission may adjourn the matter with a direction to the Competent Authority to nominate some other person to act as the CPIO for this case. The CPIO stated that the complaint is under enquiry by the CVC and the FAA vide his order dated 06/12/2013 has clearly informed the appellant that the documents sought by him (viz. copies of correspondence between the Presiding Officer and the Under Secretary to the Government) is in relation to the investigation of the complaint and is confidential and exempt under Section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act until the Ministry’s investigation is completed as any premature disclosure could impede the process. He emphasized that the information has not been disclosed in view of the statutory exemption provided under Section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act, however, he has no objection if any other person is nominated as the CPIO for this case.

Interim Decision notice dated 18/12/2014:

After hearing both the parties it is decided to grant adjournment and invite written submissions from them detailing their respective stands on the issue at hand, so that full facts are brought on record. Accordingly, both parties should furnish their submissions to the Commission (endorsing a copy to each other) by 15/01/2015. The submissions should be sent to the Commission by post and also by e-mail at b.seth@nic.in. The FAA/Presiding officer is requested to nominate some other suitable person to act as the CPIO for this case. The hearing is adjourned for 28/01/2015 at 04.00 PM

Relevant Facts emerging during the Hearing: The following were present

Appellant: Mr. Zahur Mulla through VC M: 09972150326

Respondent: Ms. Uma K CPIO through VC

The appellant stated that the information sought by him cannot be denied under Section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act on the grounds that enquiry is in progress. To support his case he cited the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi‘s decision dated 04/05/2010 [W.P.(C) 6226/2007 – S M Lamba vs. S C Gupta & Another]. The CPIO reiterated the submissions made in the FAA’s communication dated 14/01/2015 stating that refusal by the CPIO to furnish the information cannot be faulted as investigation in the matter is still incomplete. To support her contention she quoted the Commission’s decision in appeal no. 243 & 244/ICPB/2006(File. No. PBA/06/237 & 238 dated 27/12/2006). The appellant argued that the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the matter at hand as it can be seen that in his RTI application he has simply sought attested copies of the correspondence resting with letter bearing no. CGIT-LC/BNG/DA/2013-14/196 dated 14/06/2013 addressed to Shri Rajesh Kumar Under Secretary to the Government of India on the subject of a complaint made by him against Shri B V S Shastry received through the CVC. To a query the appellant clarified that he is merely seeking action taken report on a complaint filed by him against a public servant Shri B V S Shastry. He emphasized that the information is not exempt and being the complainant he cannot be treated as a third party.

Decision Notice:

Section 2(n) “third party” means a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a public authority. of the RTI Act reads as under: -

“ ‘third party’ means a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a public authority.” In the instant matter the appellant is seeking information relating to a complaint made by him against Shri B V S Shastry. Thus, he is clearly seeking information relating to a third party. It is pertinent to clarify that the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi decision dated 04/05/2010(S M Lamba V/S S C Gupta & anr) quoted by the appellant is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the matter at hand as in that case the petitioner Sh. S M Lamba was seeking information about himself and not relating to any third party. As regards the instant matter, a Coordinate Bench of the Commission vide its decision dated 26/06/2013 [file no. CIC/SM/A/2013/000058 Manoj Arya vs. Cabinet Secretariat] has held as under:

“4. We have carefully gone through the contents of the RTI application and the order of the Appellate Authority. We have also considered the submissions of both the respondent and the third party in the case. The entire information sought by the Appellant revolves around the complaints made against an officer of the government and any possible action the authorities might have taken on those complaints. The Appellate Authority was very right in deciding that this entire class of information was qualified as personal information within the meaning of the provisions of Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. In this connection, it is very pertinent to cite the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 (Girish R Deshpande vs CIC and others) in which it has held 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 could cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of that individual” The Supreme Court further held that such information could be disclosed only if it would serve a larger public interest. The information sought by the Appellant in this case is about some complaints made against a government official and any possible action the authorities might have taken on those complaints. It is, thus, clearly the kind of information which is envisaged in the above Supreme Court order. Therefore, the information is completely exempted from disclosure under the provisions of the RTI Act which both the CPIO and the Appellate Authority have rightly cited in their respective orders.”

As per the ratio of the above cited decision information relating to a complaint against public servant and action taken thereon is exempt unless larger public purpose is demonstrated. In the matter at hand the appellant has sought copies of correspondence (alongwith annexure / enclosure, if any) between the respondent CGIT and Shri Rajesh Kumar Under Secretary to the Government of India in connection with a complaint lodged by the appellant against Shri B V S Shastry received through the CVC. It has been submitted by the respondent that the correspondence is confidential. Thus, the appellant is seeking information relating to a third party which is treated as confidential. While disclosing information related to a third party which is treated as confidential, Section 11(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: of the RTI Act imposes a duty on the PIO to arrive at a conclusion that public interest in disclosure outweighs, harm or injury, to the protected interest of such third party, or larger public interest warrants disclosure of such information. The appellant has not established that the information sought is for larger public purpose. It being so, we find no justification to allow disclosure of the information. The matter is closed.

BASANT SETH

Information Commissioner

Citation: Mr. Zahur Mulla v. Ministry of Labour in File No. CIC/BS/A/2014/000137/6861