Information regarding action taken on appellant’s complaint against an official and details of action taken were denied u/s 8(1)(h) - CIC: as no larger public interest is involved, the public authority is not required to divulge details of action taken

FACTS

Vide RTI 17.9.2013 dt appellant had sought information regarding action taken on his complaint against Shri S. Teekaraman and details of action taken against him.

2. PIO vide letter dt 15.10.2013 informed appellant that the case was under consideration of the competent authority.

3. An appeal was filed on 22.10.2013.

4. AA vide order dt 19.11.2013 observed that the information provided by the PIO was correct as the matter was still under consideration of the competent authority and a final decision yet to be taken and hence denial of information u/s 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; was upheld.

5. Submissions made by the public authority were heard. AA submitted that in his complaint filed by the appellant, certain allegations were raised which were being looked into by the public authority. As the process of enquiry was still ongoing the appellant has been told that information cannot be provided at this juncture u/s 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; of the RTI Act. In the absence of the appellant, his views could not be ascertained.

DECISION

6. The Commission finds that the appellant has already been informed that his complaint was under consideration of the competent authority. The public authority is not required to divulge details of action taken against Shri Teekaraman in terms of the Hon’ble Supreme Court orders in case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande dated October 3, 2012 has observed 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 would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the CPIO is satisfied that larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.

8. The above directions are applicable to the present appeal and as no larger public interest is involved, the public authority is not required to divulge details of action taken. The appeal is disposed of.

(Rajiv Mathur)

Chief Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri V. Sadasivam v. Indian Ordnance Factories in File No.CIC/RM/A/2014/000103