Deprival of promotional benefits - CIC: PIO has erred in providing third party’s personal information without seeking their consent as per Sec. 11; PIO advised to follow the due process of law in future while deciding to disclose third party information

Information sought:

The Appellant filed RTI applications dated 09.02.2022 and 11.02.2022 seeking the following information:

“Copy of all the Following information may please be provided by the CPIO, Principal Accounts Office, Mb Power, Sewa Bhawan, R. K. Puram, New Delhi.

1) In r/o Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, AAO posted in your office.

a) Pay fixed order of the day just before the date of promotion as AAO.

b) Pay fixation order of the day on the promotion with appointment as AAO.

c) Order of promotion as AAO.

d) Order of relieving to join as AAO on promotion.

2) Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, AAO get reverted or not to the post of Sr. Accountant from Ad hoc AAO while promoted as regular AAO.

3) Pay fixation order of Sh. Ashim Barua, AAO of the day on the promotion with appointment as AAO.

4) Pay fixation order of Sh. Sandeep Ahuja, AAO of the day on the promotion with appointment as AAO.

5) Stepping up Pay Fixation orders dt:29.01.2020 in do AAOs Sh. Ashim Barua and Sh. Sandeep Ahuja done with respect to Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, AAO.

6) Note sheets along with key papers utilized in getting finalization of the Stepping up orders as asked in information no. 5 which got duly verified and audited by your office internal Audit Section.”

In case no. CIC/POWER/A/2022/141492 -

The CPIO, Ministry of Power furnished a reply to the appellant on 19.05.2022 stating as under:

“I am to forward herewith a letter received from PAO (NZ), M/o H&UA vide letter No. PAO(NZ)/Admin/RTI/2022-23/116 dated 09.5.22 (Copy enclosed) received on 12.5.22 for further action at your end.

The CPIO, Pay & Account Office (North Zone), New Delhi furnished another reply to the appellant on 09.05.2022 stating as under:

“Letter received on 09.05.2022 stating as under: With reference to your office letter No. PAO/Power/Admn/RTI/2022-23/58 Dated: 25th April 2022 regarding information sought under RTI Act 2005, it is submitted that fixation of pay comes under personal information and as per Section 8 of RTI Act, the personal information cannot be supplied to RTI Applicant, which has no relation to any public activity. Further, section also provides for exemption from disclosure of information which relates to personal information, which has not any relationship to any public activity or interest.”

Therefore, this office is unable to provide the information pertaining to Sh. Sandeep Ahuja, AA0 of this office to RTI Applicant, which seems no relation to any public activity or interest.”

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.06.2022. FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record.

In case no. CIC/POWER/A/2022/144670

The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 23.03.2022 stating as under:

“Point No. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6: Copies enclosed.

Point 4: Information does not pertain to this office.”

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.04.2022. FAA’s order dated 25.04.2022, held as under:

S. No

RTI Query

Remarks

1. 1 (c) Order of promotion as AAO of Sh Sanjeev kumar, AAO

Order of promotion as "Acting AAO" vide your office order no 191 issued vide F.N Admn/1(1)4/Acting AA0/2010-11/608 dated 20-09-10, is not attached in Sh Sanjeev Kumar's service Book. The Copy of office order is requisite in RTI.

2. 1 (d) Order of relieving to join as AAO on promotion in r/o SH Sanjeev Kumar, AAO

Order of relieving as AAO of Sh Sanjeev Kumar, AAO is not attached in service book. The relieving order was issued by 0/o PAO, CBEC, Vadodara, vide office order no 154 file no Admn/1(1)4/AAO©Nol.1/2011-12/763 dated 14-07-11.

3. 2. Sh Sanjeev Kumar, AAO get reverted or not to the post of Sr.Acctt. from Ad-hoc AAO while promoted as regular AAO.

The information is also requisite in RTI application.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through intra-video conference.

Respondent (s): Ajay Kumar Jain, Sr. A.O. , Nirman Bhawan & CPIO along with Subhasish Deb Roy, Sr. A.O. PAO (NZ) & CPIO ; Anand Mishra, AAO Pr. A.O. & Rep. of CPIO -M/o. Power and Anjali Tyagi, Sr. A.O. D/o. Pr. CCA, CBIC present through intra-video conference.

The Appellant while inviting attention of the bench towards his written submission vehemently expressed his dissatisfaction with the CPIO’s reply on the ground that complete desired information has been not provided to him till date.

He further harped on the alleged inaction of the Ministry of Power in not providing him the entitled promotional benefits to him at par with his fellow colleagues which led him to the filing of instant RTI Application. However, no positive response has been received by him till date.

The CPIOs’ reiterated the contents of their replies as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs and also stated that relevant information pertaining to averred third party officers has already been shared with the Appellant.

Decision:

The Commission observes from a perusal of records that that the core issue raised in the instant matter is not as much as about seeking access to information per se as much as it is about redressal of Appellant’s grievance regarding deprival of his promotional benefits on par with his fellow colleagues and seeking clarifications from the CPIO asking for information about third party officers in this regard.

For better understating of the mandate of RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.

His attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:

“35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing………A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.”

Further, the Appellant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under: The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:

"6. ….proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."

The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:

“6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes.”

While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:

“20. …While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information “which is held by or under the control of any public authority”, the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority….”

In addition to above, it is also not out of place to note that the service related records of third party officers as sought by the Appellant is also hit by 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. 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 RTI Act. The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text 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. 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. 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 as under:

“8. Exemption from disclosure of information.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxxx (j) 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;..”

In this regard, attention of the Appellant is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of “personal information” envisaged 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. 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. 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 RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.The following was thus held:

“59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive…”

However, ignoring the above said aspect, the CPIO has erred in providing third party’s personal information without seeking their consent as per Section 11 of RTI Act. In this regard, the CPIO is hereby advised to follow the due process of law in future while deciding to disclose any third party related information that stands exempted from disclosure 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. 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. 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.

Having observed as above, no further relief can be granted in the matters and the Appellant is advised to get his grievance redressed from the appropriate forum.

The appeal (s) are disposed of accordingly.

Saroj Punhani

Information Commissioner

Citation: Vijay Kumar Keshari v. Ministry of Power, M/o Housing and Urban Affairs, Central Board of Excise & Customs, Date of Decision: 23/06/2023