PIO denied the service records and educational qualifications pertaining to third-party officers - CIC: Denial of personal information upheld; PIO and FAA advised to quote the appropriate provision of the RTI Act while denying information
19 Jul, 2023CIC/IIOFP/A/2022/153933
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.05.2022 seeking the following information:
“The initial appointment Dr. Tanwir Alam to the Post, date of appointment to the Pre-revised Scale of Pay.
(ii) Educational Qualification initially held including additional qualification added henceforth.
(iii) Whether the said education, experience was as per the laid criteria in the advertisement.
(iv) Whether his initial appointment was subject to any condition expressly written in his appointment letter.
(v) Any Promotion given to him thereafter with the Post and date of Promotion.
(vi) if the Promotion was on adhoc basis continuing till now.
(vii) The rules on such adhoc Promotions as per DOP'I' rules prevalent.
(viii) The inspection of the personal file of Shri Alam including the ACR report submitted year-wise more particularly as per RTI Act, 2005.”
CIC/IIOFP/A/2022/153945
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.05.2022 seeking the following information:
“The initial appointment Dr. Tanwir Alam to the Post, date of appointment to the Pre-revised Scale of Pay.
(ii) Educational Qualification initially held including additional qualification added henceforth.
(iii) Whether the said education, experience was as per the laid criteria in the advertisement.
(iv) Whether his initial appointment was subject to any condition expressly written in his appointment letter.
(v) Any Promotion given to him thereafter with the Post and date of Promotion.
(vi) if the Promotion was on adhoc basis continuing till now. (vii) The rules on such adhoc Promotions as per DOP'I' rules prevalent.
(viii) The inspection of the personal file of Shri Alam including the ACR report submitted year-wise more particularly as per RTI Act, 2005.”
CIC/IIOFP/A/2022/153945
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.05.2022 seeking the following information:
“(i) The initial appointment of Shri Shekhar Amberkar with Cadre and also with the department's name.
(ii) Whether the initial appointment was done in reservation category if yes, the category.
(iii) Whether the Post held with additional responsibilities by him concur to the educational qualification and experience laid.
(iv) Since when these additional responsibilities are being shouldered by him.
(v) Any financial benefits or upgradation is extended to him like MACPS and since when.
(vi) The inspection of the personal file of Shri Ambedkar including the ACR report submitted year-wise more particularly as per RTI Act, 2005.
(vii) Any adverse remarks entered his ACR report due to FIR from the Central Bureau of Investigation, if no, with the reasons thereof.”
In case no. CIC/IIOFP/A/2022/153933 & CIC/IIOFP/A/2022/153945-
The CPIO furnished replies to the appellant on 11.07.2022 stating as under:
“Prima Facie it is observed that the information sought is personal in nature and apparently not in the larger public interest. Therefore, found exempted from disclosure of information as per the provision of RTI Act, 2005.”
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed First Appeal for each of the above two cases, dated 15.07.2022. FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record.
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 audio-conference.
Respondent: Represented by Shekhar Amberkar, Asst. Director along with Dr Baby Rao, Joint Director & FAA present through video-conference.
The Appellant expressed his dissatisfaction with the denial of information by the CPIO ignoring the fact that the information sought for pertains to public servants which should ideally be put in public domain, in order to maintain transparency in the system.
The FAA reiterated their denial of information against the third party’s concerned on the ground that the Appellant has sought personal details including service records and credentials of said officers which impinges on their privacy and cannot be shared under RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of records that the core contention raised by the Appellant in the instant Appeal was denial of details relating to the service records and educational qualifications pertaining to above-mentioned third-party officers. In this regard, the Commission arrives at the conclusion that the CPIO has appropriately denied the personal information of the third party which 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. 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. 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. 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…”
In view of the above, the contentions raised by the Appellant regarding disclosure of personal details of public servants in public domain are rendered inconsequential. Thus, no relief can be granted in the matters.
However, the CPIO and FAA are advised to always quote the appropriate provision of the RTI Act while denying information to the RTI applicant.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani
Information Commissioner
Citation: S M Deshpande v. Indian Institute of Packaging, CIC/IIOFP/A/2022/153933 + CIC/IIOFP/A/2022/153945; Date of Decision: 23/05/2023