Certified copy of Seniority Roll for promotion of Chargeman was denied citing absence of larger public interest - CIC: Conduct of the PIO amounts to a gross violation of the RTI Act provisions; Section 11 is a procedural provision, not an exemption clause
7 Jan, 2021Certified copy of Seniority Roll for promotion of Chargeman was denied citing absence of larger public interest - CIC: The conduct of the CPIO amounts to a gross violation of the provisions of RTI Act as for one, Section 11 is not an exemption clause under RTI Act, rather it is a procedural provision to be adopted when third party information is being parted with
Information sought:
The Appellant sought certified copy of Seniority Roll for promotion of Chargeman (CM).
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Present on phone
Respondent: Lt. Col Anil Gogawale, SRO (Pension Group) &CPIO, RTI Cell, EME Records, C/o 56 APO, Secunderabad, present on phone
Appellant stated that he is aggrieved with the arbitrary denial of information by CPIO.
CPIO submitted that he will abide by the orders of the Commission, if any, in the instant matter.
Decision
Commission observes from the perusal of facts on record that the CPIO has denied the information citing absence of larger public interest Section 11 of RTI Act as an exemption. The said conduct of the CPIO amounts to a gross violation of the provisions of RTI Act as for one, Section 11 is not an exemption clause under RTI Act, rather it is a procedural provision to be adopted when third party information is being parted with. Similarly, rejecting Applications on the sole ground that there is no larger public interest is akin to creating a mockery of the provisions of the RTI Act in as much as the question of public interest will only arise when one of the protected interests enlisted in section 8 of the RTI Act subsists.
In view of the foregoing, the denial of information without invoking any exemption clause of RTI Act amounts to causing obstruction to the Appellant’s right to information. CPIO is hereby warned to remain careful in future and ensure that information under RTI Act can be denied only under Section 8 and/or 9 of the RTI Act.
Further, CPIO is directed to provide copy of relevant seniority roll of Chargeman available as on the date of RTI Application to the Appellant free of cost, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, when CPIO resumes routine office after the COVID-19 lockdown is lifted.
CPIO is hereby warned to remain careful in future and ensure that information under RTI Act can be denied only under Section 8 and/or copy of relevant seniority roll of free of cost, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, when CPIO resumes routine office. A compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the CPIO.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Divya Prakash Sinha
Information Commissioner
Citation: Ravinder Singh v. EME Records in File No: CIC/DODEF/A/2018/630795, Date of Decision: 13/05/2020