RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

1. This intra-court appeal impugns the judgment dated 13th July, 2012 of the learned Single Judge of dismissal of W.P.(C) No.1243/2011 preferred by the appellant UPSC. The writ petition was preferred challenging the decision dated 12th January, 2011 of the Central Information Commission (CIC) established under the Right to Information Act, 2005. This appeal came up first on 7th September, 2012 and was adjourned to 9th October, 2012 and thereafter to 16th October, 2012. The respondent appeared on caveat and with consent we have heard the counsels finally. 2. The respondent, invoking the provisions of the Act had sought following information from the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the appellant UPSC:-

“(A) Please provide inspection of all records, documents, note sheets, manuscripts, records, reports, office memorandum, part files and files relating to the proposed disciplinary action and/or imposition of penalty against Shri G.S. Narang, IRS, Central Excise and Customs Service Officer of 1974 Batch and also inspection of the records, files, etc., relating to the decision of the UPSC thereof Shri G.S. Narang is presently posted as Director General of Inspection Customs and Central Excise. (B) Please provide copies of all the note sheets and the final decision taken regarding imposition of penalty/disciplinary action and decision of UPSC thereof.” The period for which aforesaid information was sought was in the application dated 9th June, 2009 stated as “from 16-10-1991 to 8-06-2009”. 3. The PIO of the appellant UPSC vide reply dated 26th June, 2009 declined to furnish the information sought, stating that it was of personal nature and disclosure thereof had no relationship to any public activity or interest and may also infringe upon the privacy of the individual concerned. Exemption provided under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act was invoked.

4. The respondent preferred an appeal against the aforesaid denial of information. In the Memorandum of Appeal dated 29th August, 2009 it was inter alia pleaded that the appellant UPSC does not carry any disciplinary proceedings itself but only provides opinion and forming of such opinion by the appellant UPSC is a public activity and the steps taken in forming that opinion were in public domain. The appellant UPSC before the first Appellate Authority contended that Shri G.S. Narang, to whom the information sought pertained, was a third party and for this reason also the information could not be disclosed. It was further contended that the advice of the appellant UPSC is tendered in terms of Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution of India and is not binding on the President of India. 5. The first Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal vide order dated 22nd September, 2009 reiterating that the information sought was of personal nature and disclosure thereof had no relationship to any public activity or interest and may infringe upon the privacy of the individual concerned. It was further held that the disclosure of such information was exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act.

6. Aggrieved therefrom, the respondent preferred a second appeal to the CIC. The CIC allowed the appeal of the respondent vide order dated 12th January, 2011 supra holding that as far as the appellant UPSC is concerned, it receives references from the Ministries and Departments in disciplinary matters to give its comments and recommendations and had been consulted in the matter relating to Shri G.S. Narang also and offered its comments and views to the Government; whatever records are held by the appellant UPSC in this regard have to be disclosed because the same cannot be classified as personal information merely on the ground that it concerns some particular officer. Reference was made to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Centre of Earth Science Studies Vs. Anson Sebastian reported as AIR 2010 Ker 150 holding that information sought by an employee from his