Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 2816
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Central Public Information Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Hq – Appellant
Versus
Alok Dutta Jha & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 9263 of 2017
Decided On : 13-02-2023
Mr. Brijesh kumar Tamber and Mr. Yashu Rustagi, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
None, for the Respondent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that information qualifying as personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is exempt from disclosure unless it involves a larger public interest.
Headnote:
Privacy - RTI Application - Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 8(1)(j)
Fact of the Case:
The CPIO rejected the RTI application seeking information related to a third party employee, citing invasion of privacy and personal information. The Appellate Authority and CIC upheld the CPIO's decision. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the impugned order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the information sought was covered under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, as it pertained to personal information and did not serve any public interest. The court relied on the judgment in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 to support its decision.
Issues: The main issue was whether the information sought in the RTI application qualified as personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and whether its disclosure served any public interest.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the details sought, including memos, show cause notices, and orders of censure/punishment, qualified as personal information and did not relate to any public activity or public interest. The court emphasized that disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the CIC's order, and disposed of the writ petition with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral)
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:
"6. The Commission directs the respondent authority to furnish certified copies of the information sought and also directs Shri P.B. Bhattacharya, present CPIO and Shri Gowtham, then CPIO who is presently posted in Kolkata to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against each of them for not providing the information, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order."
3. The RTI application dated 28th November, 2014 was filed by Shri Alok Dutta Jha seeking the following information.
"1. Please provide the photocopy of vigilance clearance certificate submitted for promotion of Shri Paritosh Kumar based on the comments given on 05.03.2012 & 06.03.2012 for the post of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.
2. The photocopy of the Charge sheet which is given to Shri Paritosh Kumar on 24.09.2010 may be furnished and give the details of its present status.
3. Shri Paritosh Kumar has been suspended by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 06.05.2010. In this regard, when the charge sheet was given to him and the present status.
4. Whether the entries of suspension and charge sheet are to be entered in the service book of the concerned officer?
5. Whether during the pendency of issuance of charge sheet or after the issuance of charge sheet Vigilance Clearance Certificate can be issued to any officer?
6. Due to his arrest by CBl Shri Paritosh Kumar had been suspended on 22.08.2008. Whether the charge sheet has been given to him in compliance of the directions given by CBI to impose major penalty on him? If so when it was given, furnish photo copy of the same and its present status."
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
