Information regarding any action taken against an individual on appellant’s complaint against him for misbehavior was denied u/s 8(1)(j) - CIC: Inform the appellant about the action taken on the recommendation of Women’s Cell

ORDER

1. The appellant, Ms. Shikha Chaurasia, submitted RTI application dated July 19, 2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), LIC of India, Ajmer; seeking information regarding any action taken against Shri Kan Singh Rathore on her complaint against him for misbehavior with her and copy of warning letter, if any issued to his in this regard; through a total of 2 points..

2. The appellant preferred appeal dt. September 3, 2013 to the first appellate authority (FAA) when she did not receive any reply from the CPIO concerned within the stipulated time period. In reply to the appeal; vide letter September 12, 2013; the CPIO informed the appellant that reply had been furnished vide their letter dated 29.7.2013. On point 1 the CPIO confirmed that letter was issued to Shri Kan Singh Rathore. He denied the copy of the said letter sought for in point no. 2 u/s 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. and 11(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. Not satisfied with the CPIO’s reply, the appellant again preferred an appeal dated October 4, 2013 to the first appellate authority (FAA) stating that she should be provided the copy of warning letter issued to Shri Kan Singh Rathore as it was issued to him on her complaint only. Vide order dated November 16, 2013; the FAA held that information had been provided to the appellant on two occasion i.e. first on 29.7.2013 & again on 12.9.2013.

3. Dissatisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.

4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant submitted that she was working in LIC of India for the last 25 years and she had made complaint against Sri Kan Singh Rathore for his misbehaving with her. She had sought the inquiry report prepared on the basis of her complaint which was denied to her by the respondents.

5. The respondents submitted that they had denied the warning letter issued to Shri Kan Singh Rathore on the basis of the complaint made by the appellant u/s 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, 2005 as it was the personal information of their employee. Besides, Shri Kan Singh Rathore had denied his consent for providing the information to the appellant on their notice to Shri Kan Singh Rathore u/s 11(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: of the RTI Act, 2005. They explained that after the complaint was made in the women’s cell headed by Ms. Vidya Bhattacharya, AO; against Shri Kan Singh Rathore, she recommended the authority to advice Shri Kan Singh Rathore not to repeat such acts in future and they had complied with the order. The letter of advice given to Shri Shri Kan Singh Rathore contained some personal information about him which could not be disclosed to the appellant.

6. The Commission accepts the submissions made by the respondents in the light of the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors.[Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012] dated 3 October 2012, which is as follows:

“12. The petitioner herein sought for copies of all memos, show cause notices and censure/punishment awarded to the third respondent from his employer and also details viz. movable and immovable properties and also the details of his investments, lending and borrowing from Banks and other financial institutions. Further, he has also sought for the details of gifts stated to have accepted by the third respondent, his family members and friends and relatives at the marriage of his son. The information mostly sought for finds a place in the income tax returns of the third respondent. The question that has come up for consideration is whether the abovementioned information sought for qualifies to be "personal information" as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.”

7. The Commission, however, directs the respondents to inform the appellant about the action taken on the recommendation of Women’s Cell headed by Ms. Vidya Bhattacharya, AO within 7 days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.

(Manjula Prasher)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Ms. Shikha Chaurasia v. LIC of India in Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2014/000888