CIC: If the higher authority considers prima facie substance in any complaint & inquires into it whether resulting into proving the allegation or not, such information about the complaint cannot be consider as personal information and shall be disclosed

Decision: If a complaint filed against public servant is rejected by public authority as false and baseless, that complaint could be regarded as ‘personal’ 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. . If the higher authority considers prima facie substance in any of the complaint and inquired into, or disciplinary action was initiated, it was either resulted in proving the allegation or not, such information about the complaint cannot be consider as personal information and shall be disclosed.

Parties Present:

1. Appellant is present. Mr. Ashok Kumar, Under Secretary represented public authority.

FACTS:

2. Appellant through his RTI application seeking details of posting of D.N Singh, IFS of his service from 1987 till date, copy of letter dated 4.9.2014 regarding his deputation, copy of all complaints made against Mr D.N Singh and action taken on his letter dated 3.7.2014.CPIO denied the information on point no 3 by claiming exemption of section 8 (1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005. Being unsatisfied, appellant filed first appeal. First appellate authority upheld the PIO reply. Being unsatisfied, filed this second appeal.

Proceedings before the Commission:

3. The copies of the complaints made against D. N. Singh during his service were denied under section 8 (1) (j) as it pertains to his personal information by stating:

(i) That the appellant Sh. Pankaj Tyagi’s RTI application dated 3.11.2014 was received in IFSI division of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate change and was transferred to Vigilance Division of this Ministry vide IfsI(AGMUT) Section letter dated 27.11.2014 with the request to provide the information in respect of point No. 3, vide which following information was sought:

“Give me copies of all complaints made against D. N. Singh in his service”.

(ii) That above information was denied under section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005 vide letter dated 8.12.2014.

(ii) That aggrieved by the denial of information by the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal to first appellant authority vide his letter dated 26.12.2014. First Appellant Authority on going through the records and relying on CIC Judgment/decision on the similar cases had upheld the denial of information by the CPIO vide letter dated 19.01.2015.

(iv) That DoPT vide its OM No. 11/2/2013IR(pt.) dated14.8.203 has communicated one of the decision of Central Information Commission wherein Hon’ble Commission held that information about the complaints made against an officer of the Government and any possible action the authority might have taken on those complaints, qualifies as personal information within the meaning of provision of 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 RTT Act, 2005. The Commission while deciding the said case has cited the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the matter of Girish R. Deshpande Vs. CIC and others (SLP (C) No. 27734/2012) in which it was held as under :

“The performance of an employee/officer in an organization 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.

4. The Judgment of Supreme Court referred above is profusely quoted for denial of information on the grounds of privacy. In fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the 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. . In the opinion of the apex court, the performance of employee in an office is his personal information. Still that could be disclosed in larger public interest as per the proviso in that exception and also in ‘public interest’ under Section 8(2) Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. which says: Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with subsection (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.

5. Performance related information could be personal as viewed by the Supreme Court, but when the employees performance came under a shadow because of complaints and leading to disciplinary action that will be relevant for the people because they will be affected by the nonperformance or misperformance of those government employees. Those complaints which were discarded as found nothing wrong prima facie, do not constitute information about performance, and can be classified as personal information, which cannot be disclosed 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. . In another exception, information cannot be disclosed if that impedes the process of investigation. That means the information about completed investigation or inquiry can be given. Thus the RTI Act permits the disclosure of performance related information about the employee on condition that information shall not impede the investigation or prosecution. Information in a complaint which was acted upon, i.e., investigated or inquired into, shall become accessible information, whether it resulted in proof of wrong or innocence. If there is an inquiry into misconduct of employee resulting in cutting of an increment, that information has relationship to public activity or interest, then it can be released.

6. Based on RTI Act the conditions for disclosure of personal information as per this section, are:

a) information relates to personal information, but it has relationship with any public activity or interest [ 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. ], or

b) which would not cause any unwarranted invasion of privacy of individual

c) which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of individual but CPIO, or appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, [proviso to 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. ]

d) which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature [second proviso to 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. ], or

e) if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests [ 8(2) Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. ],

f) if the complaint is acted upon and inquiry was conducted. [based on 8(1)(h)]

7. If a complaint filed against public servant is rejected by public authority as false and baseless, that complaint could be regarded as ‘personal’ 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. . If the higher authority considers prima facie substance in any of the complaint and inquired into, or disciplinary action was initiated, it was either resulted in proving the allegation or not, such information about the complaint cannot be consider as personal information and shall be disclosed. The public authority in such circumstances is expected to share the copy of the complaint and action taken thereof, whatever including final decision for acceptance, hence the Commission directs the respondent authority to examine the record and provide copies of those complaints which were acted upon. With these directions, appeal is closed.

(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Pankaj Tyagi v. M/o Environment, Forests & Climate Change in Case No.CIC/SA/A/2015/900601