ORDER

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/o. Steel, New Delhi seeking following information:-

“Please refer to RTI Application MOSTL/R/2018/50016 and communication dated 12-03-2018 stating that the information cannot be provided at this stage under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act. Hopefully the investigation must have been over as vigilance investigations are to be concluded within 6 months as per manual. Hence, kindly provide investigation and action taken report on the complaint dated 03-02-2017 and forwarded to ministry of steel by CVC on 06-04-2017, as informed to applicant by CVC on 05-02-2018. (The copies of all these letters were enclosed to RTI Application MOSTL/R/2018/50016).”

2. The CPIO responded on 20-02-2019. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 18-03-2019 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 15- 04-2019. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.

Hearing:

3. The appellant, Mr. Sugan Chandra Gupta attended the hearing through audio conferencing. Mr. Shubhendu, CPIO participated in the hearing representing the respondent through audio conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.

4. The appellant contended that the action taken against an employee of the public authority cannot be treated as an exempted information and therefore, the exemption claimed by the CPIO u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 is not appropriate.

5. The respondent contended that the performance of an employee in an organization is a matter between the employer and employee covered by the ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner &Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212. Therefore, they have claimed exemption u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 for denying the details of the departmental action taken by the public authority. However, they have conveyed the status of the complaint to the appellant.

Decision:

6. This Commission observes that the details of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the employee of the public authority cannot be provided to the appellant, as it is a matter between employer and employees covered by the ratio of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner &Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212, wherein, it was observed as under:-

“13. 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 organization 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.”

7. In view of the foregoing, this Commission comes to the conclusion that action taken on the complaint filed against an employee of the public authority cannot be disclosed to the appellant in the absence of any larger public interest in the matter. Since the appellant has not shown any larger public interest in the matter, this Commission upholds the exemption claimed by the CPIO u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.