Information regarding a vigilance matter concerning third parties was denied u/s 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) - CIC: performance of an employee is a matter between the employee and the employer; governed by service rules which falls under ‘personal information’
1 Dec, 2013ORDER
1. The appellant has filed an RTI application dated 19.1.2009 in which he sought information on the following ten queries:
(1) Intimate the procedure/practice about receipt of references/letters, its process, time limit and disposal in the Office of the Chairman, Director, Personnel, SAIL;
(2) Copy of prescribed procedure and method of conducting the investigation by Vigilance Wing;
(3) Copies of letters No. C-13019(19)/2—5-Vig dated 17.4.2006 and 24.4.2006 along with copies of enclosures from Ministry of Steel to Vigilance, SAIL;
(4) Copies of documents referred to by the AGM-Vig Mr. Sanjay Sharma while preparing the Investigation Report dated 1.11.2006. Also furnish details of statements obtained, visits to Bhadravati and Pune;
(5) Copies of documents referred to by GM(Vig) Mr. O.P. Sharma and furnish copy of approval obtained from CVO for the letter No. 114/VISL/03 dated 10.11.2006 regarding allotment of rejected materials by VISL;
(6) Furnish copies of action taken on his letter dated 5.12.2008 addressed to Shri Sanjay Sharma, AGM(Vig) with a copy to GM (Vig) regarding investigation report dated 1.11.2006 done based on the letter from Ministry of Steel;
(7) Copies of action taken on his letter dated 25.12.2008 addressed to CVO, SAIL regarding request for immediate withdrawal of the Investigation Report dated 1.11.2006 prepared by Shri Sanjay Sharma, AGM (V) as the same is not based on the documentary evidence before it makes irreparable damage to self and to the Company;
(8) Copies of action taken on his letter dated 25.12.2008 addressed to CVO, SAIL reg. request for immediate withdrawal of the Investigation Report dated 1.11.2006 prepared by Shri Sanjay Sharma, AGM (V) as the same is not based on the documentary evidence before it makes irreparable damage to self and to the Company;
(9) Copies of action taken on his letter dated 9.1.09 addressed to the Chairman, SAIL with copies to Director (P) and CVO, SAIL regarding Request for immediate intervention for redressal of his grievances of ‘Denial of Promotion’; and
(10) Furnish copy of CDA Rules.”.
2. The CPIO vide letter No. PERS/RTI/B-425(A)(1)/09/267 dated 10.2.2009 replied to the appellant as follows:
(1) The duties of officers and employees and procedure followed in the decision making process is given in RTI manual of SAIL website www.sail.co.in;
(2) Corporate Vigilance follows CVC guidelines which are available at CVC website www.cvc.nic;
(3 to 8) Information denied under the provisions of Section 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; of the RTI Act;
(9) Letter dated 9.1.2009 referred has not been received at Corporate Vigilance as on date;
(10) For obtaining CDA guidelines the CPIO requested the appellant to deposit Rs. 116/-.
In response to appellant’s another letter dated 24.2.2009, the CPIO vide letter No. PERS/RTI/B-425(A)(1)/09/267 dated 3.3.2009 replied to the appellant that he is attempting to enter into further correspondence with the CPIO in spite of the reply to his RTI application sent within the prescribed time under the RTI Act. The CPIO also informed the appellant that on going through his letter it was noted that it was not a case where information sought for relates to life or liberty of a person.
3. Aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal on 10.3.2009 before the FAA. The FAA vide order No. PERS/RTI/CO/09/38(A) dated 25.5.2009 reiterated that information to Point 2 to 8 cannot be provided under section 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; and 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; 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 and rejected appellant’s appeal.
4. In his written submissions filed before the Commission, the appellant submits that there is deemed refusal on the part of the CPIO in not furnishing the information and failure on the part of FAA to pass a speaking order. Firstly, the CPIO has failed to respond even though he had filed RTI application enforcing the provisions of ‘life and liberty’. Secondly he has taken shelter under section 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; and 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; 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; without any justification.
5. During the hearing the respondent submit that the appellant has sought information with respect to a vigilance matter concerning third parties and the matter has not yet reached finality. The CPIO and FAA have not passed a speaking order, they must do so in future. However, having considered the submissions of the parties the Commission is of the view that the information as sought for by the appellant at Point Nos 2 to 8 of the RTI application relates to vigilance matters pertaining to third party. In this regard the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 3.10.2012 in the matter of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. CIC in SLP (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012 held:
“We are in agreement with the CIC and the Courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. 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.”
In view of aforementioned judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the information as sought for on Point Nos. 2 to 8 of the RTI application, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest, is exempted from disclosure under the provisions 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. and 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; 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. On remaining points the CPIO has adequately replied to the appellant. Moreover, the provisions of Section 7(1) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9: (Proviso) of the RTI Act, invoked by the appellant, in his RTI application under ‘life or liberty’ is not attracted in the present case. No action is called for on the part of the Commission.
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Rama Krishna v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. in Case No. CIC/LS/A/2013/001083/SS