Copy of the officers of doubtful integrity list was denied u/s 8(1)(h) & 8(1)(j) - PIO: information is related to third party(s), is personal in nature and no larger public purpose has been demonstrated by the appellant - CIC: appeal rejected

ORDER

Information sought:

1- What are the parameters to add the name of officers/employee in the ODI list?

2- If a charge sheet for criminal case against any officer is submitted in the court of law whether his name can be added to ODI list.

3- Certified copy of the ODI list.

Grounds for the Second Appeal: PIO has not given the reply for point No. 2&3

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present

Appellant: Mr. Padam Singh appellant’s representative

Respondent: Mr. H S Rawat CAPIO & Mr. N.L. Tanwar

The appellant’s representative stated that he had asked for a list of ‘officers of doubtful integrity’ (ODI) but the respondents have not been provided the information. The CAPIO stated that the information is secret, relates to third party(s), is personal in nature and no larger public purpose has been demonstrated by the appellant to justify the disclosure. He claimed exemption 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; & 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. 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.

Decision notice:

It is noted that the information solicited by the appellant is covered by the ratio of the earlier orders of the Commission in File No. 2713/IC/PB/2008, dated 19/8/2008 – Puran Singh vs. Central Warehousing Corporation & File No. CIC/SS/A/2012/002278, dated 8/5/2012 – Sunil Kumar Chourasia vs. Eastern Coal Field Limited holding that the list containing the names of officers of doubtful integrity is 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; & 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. 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. The Commission has reasoned that the information pertains to third party(s) and its disclosure would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. It being so, the respondent’s stand cannot be faulted. The information need not be disclosed. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

BASANT SETH

Information Commissioner

Citation: Mr. Vipen Kumar v. BSNL in File No. CIC/BS/A/2012/001936/4080