के ीय सूचना आयोग

Central Information Commission

बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi – 110067

File No : CIC/UTOAN/A/2018/141917

P Kannan ….अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o The Chief Secretary,
Andaman & Nicobar Administration,
Port Blair – 744101,
UT of Andaman & Nicobar. … ितवादीगण /Respondent

RTI application filed on : 19/03/2018

CPIO replied on : No reply
First appeal filed on : 26/04/2018
First Appellate Authority order : No order
Second Appeal dated : 25/06/2018
Date of Hearing : 29/01/2020
Date of Decision : 29/01/2020

lwpuk vk;qDr : fnO; izdk”k flUgk

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA

Information sought:
The Appellant through 8 points sought information regarding the action taken,
orders passed and other related documents & entire file noting(s) in connection
with the office Memorandum of Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi vide no.
006/04/UTS/001/134477 dt. 28.06.2011.

Grounds for the Second Appeal:

The CPIO has not provided the desired information.

1
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through VC.

Respondent: Swapan Bhattacharya, Asstt. Secy. & PIO, O/o the Chief Secretary,
Andaman & Nicobar Administration, Port Blair present through VC.

Appellant stated that the PIO has wrongly denied information under section
8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

Upon instance of the Commission, PIO submitted that information sought in the
instant RTI Application was personal information of a third party which pertains to
disciplinary proceedings conducted against P.K Singh, Supdt. Engineer and A.
Subramaniam, Executive Engineer of APWD, A&N Administration without any
larger public interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of
the aforementioned third party, hence the same was denied under section 8(1)
(j) of the RTI Act.

Decision.

Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of the
proceedings during hearing observes that the information sought by the
Appellant in the instant RTI Application pertains to personal information of a third
party, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any larger public interest and
would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third party. In view of
this, Commission finds it pivotal to cite observations of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in various cases, wherein the aspect of “personal information” has been
explained in a highly structured manner. In this regard, ratio laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil
Appeal No.22 of 2009 may be noted, wherein the scope of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI
Act with respect to service matters of government employees has been further
exemplified. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:
“...5) The information was sought on 15 parameters with regard to various
aspects of transfers of clerical staff and staff of the Bank with regard to individual
employees. This information was in relation to the personal details of individual
employee such as the date of his/her joining, designation, details of promotion
earned, date of his/her joining to the Branch where he/she is posted, the
authorities who issued the transfer orders etc. etc.
2
 File No : CIC/UTOAN/A/2018/141917

12) In our considered opinion, the issue involved herein remains no more res
integra and stands settled by two decisions of this Court in 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, it may not be necessary to
re-examine any legal issue urged in this appeal.

13) In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande's case (supra), the petitioner therein (Girish)
had sought some personal information of one employee working in Sub Regional
Office (provident fund) Akola. All the authorities, exercising their respective
powers under the Act, declined the prayer for furnishing the information sought
by the petitioner. The High Court in writ petition filed by the petitioner upheld the
orders. Aggrieved by all the order, he filed special leave to appeal in this Court.
Their Lordships dismissed the appeal and upholding the orders passed by the High
Court held as under:-

‘12. 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 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 Central Public
Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate
authority is satisfied that the 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.

13. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are
“personal information” which stand exempted from disclosure under
clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public
interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public
Information Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger
public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.’
14) In our considered opinion, the aforementioned principle of law applies to the
facts of this case on all force. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the information
sought by respondent No.1 of individual employees working in the Bank was
3
 personal in nature; secondly, it was exempted from being disclosed under Section
8(j) of the Act and lastly, neither respondent No.1 disclosed any public interest
much less larger public interest involved in seeking such information of the
individual employee and nor any finding was recorded by the Central Information
Commission and the High Court as to the involvement of any larger public interest
in supplying such information to respondent No.1...” [Emphasis Supplied]

Further, Commission also relies upon the recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court 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. The relevant
portion of the said judgment is as under:
“…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…”
[Emphasis Supplied]

Adverting to the supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in both the aforementioned
cases has categorized a variety of aspects that comes under the purview of
“personal information” which are exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of
the RTI Act. Commission taking into account the facts of the present case upholds
the submission of the PIO with regard to denial of information sought under
instant RTI Application. No further action lies

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Divya Prakash Sinha ( द काश िस हा )

Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु )

4
 File No : CIC/UTOAN/A/2018/141917
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)

Haro Prasad Sen

Dy. Registrar
011-26106140 / haro.sen@nic.in
हरो साद सेन, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक / Date

Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by User

Date: 2020.01.30 16:55:15 IST