Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 13th February, 2023
CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, EMPLOYEES
PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, HQ ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Brijesh kumar Tamber and Mr. Yashu Rustagi, Advocates. (M:
8882149812)
Through: None.
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. None has appeared for the Respondent despite service.
2. The present petition has been filed by the CPIO, EPFO (HQ) challenging the impugned order dated 10th August, 2017 filed by the CIC. The operative portion of the impugned order reads:
3. The RTI application dated 28th November, 2014 was filed by Shri Alok Dutta Jha seeking the following information.
4. The request for the said information was rejected by the CPIO relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212. The CPIO held that the information sought was related to the individual’s personal information and would be, therefore, invasion of the privacy of the said person, who may an employee of EPFO. The finding given by the CPIO is as under: In respect of information at serial nos.[1] to 3, the response given was as under: “The information sought by the applicant is concerned about the third party. On 3rd October] 2012 the Supreme Court has stated in Special Leave Petition number 27734 year 2012@CC1478/2012) (Girish Ramchandra Deshpande versus Central Information Commissioner and Others) that the copies of all the memorandums issued to the third defendant, Orders of, Show Cause Notice and condemnation/penalty etc. Are defined as personal information. Under Clause J of section 8(1) of Right to Information Act. In any organisation the performance of employee/officer mainly is the matter between Employee and Employer and in general this aspect is governed by Service rule which comes under personal information, the revelation of the same doesn't contribute to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, by revealing such things would cause in appropriate interference into privacy of a person. If Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer is satisfied in this matter that if the revelation of the information in large scale is in the interest of public welfare then, appropriate orders can be passed. In order of the above comment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the information which is regarding complaint against a third party employee and under Clause J of section 8(1) of Right to Information Act., 2005 defined as personal information and not a matter of public interest.' Therefore, information is not being provided.” In respect of information at serial nos.[4] & 5, the response given was as under: “The information sought is in the form of question. The Right to Information Act, doesn't give order/right to any public authority to give answer or explanation to the question in connection, with some decision. Hence, no information can be provided in the form of answer.”
5. An appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 was filed by the Petitioner before the Appellate Authority and in the said appeal, the RTI applicant stated as under: “Sir, In this regard it is submitted that the information I have sought is in public interest, because it is apprehended that there may be irregularities in promoting this officer to the post of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II. There is possibility that due to unjust promotion of this officer some valid candidate might have been deprived of promotion. If the said officer has been promoted as per rules, there should not be any problem in providing related documents and If some irregularities are found it is possible that any other eligible officer may get promotion to the post of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II and justice may be done to him.”
6. Vide order dated 15th May, 2015 the Appellate Authority again reiterated the CPIO’s order. The Appellate Authority held that the RTI response given by the PIO i.e., the CPIO Vigilance was as per rules.
7. Thereafter, on 18th February, 2016, the Petitioner filed a second appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, bearing number CIC/BS/A/2016/QQQ735 and a hearing was given on 22nd June, 2017 in the said second appeal. The orders of the PIO and the First Appellate Authority, were set aside by the CIC, vide the impugned order dated 10th August, 2017 in the second appeal. The finding of the CIC is as under:
8. Today, ld. counsel appearing for the Petitioner has once again cited the decision in Girish Ram Chandra (supra), to argue that the information sought was clearly related to a third party, who was an employee of the Petitioner and in no way concerned with the RTI applicant. Further, he argues that no public interest was being affected with the disclosure of the said information.
9. It is clear from the kind of information being sought, that the specific vigilance clearance certificate for the promotion of one employee has been sought, along with a copy of the chargesheets and the suspension order, if any. The information sought also relates to entries in the service book of the said employee. Clearly, these kinds of information would be covered under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, inasmuch as these documents pertain to issues between the employer and one employee.
10. No public interest is being served by disclosure of the same. The CIC was clearly wrong in holding that the judgment in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (supra) would not apply or that it would not be covered by Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. The reasoning of the CIC simply records that the CPIO’s order could not be substantiated, which would be incorrect considering the nature of the information sought. The Supreme Court in Girish Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (supra) has observed as under:
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 of 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. The petitioner in the instant case has not made a bona fide public interest in seeking information, the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. ”
11. Accordingly, the present case would be clearly covered by the said judgment. The appeal is allowed.
12. The CIC’s order dated 18th August, 2017 is set aside, with no order as to costs.
13. The writ petition, along with all pending applications, is disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. FEBRUARY 13, 2023/dk/am