Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 5396
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Central Information Commission, CJ
Mr. Raj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
CPIO, The New India Assurance Company Limited – Respondent
Complaint No. CIC/NIACL/C/2019/150063
For the Appellant: Not listed
For the Respondent: R M Bhatnagar
The court upheld the exemption for disclosing personal information under the RTI Act when public interest is not demonstrated.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 8(1)(j) - Disclosure of information related to employee disciplinary proceedings - The Commission upholds the CPIO's denial of information regarding third-party disciplinary actions as personal information, falling under the exemption, there was no shown public interest. (Paras 6 and 7)
(B) Jurisdiction of Central Information Commission - The CIC has no jurisdiction to direct disclosure of information under Section 18 of the RTI Act, but may impose penalties where warranted based on the conduct of the Information Officer. (Paras 8 and 8.1)
Facts of the case:
The complainant sought information regarding action taken against an employee based on an RTI request but was denied by the CPIO citing privacy exemptions.
Findings of Court:
The CPIO should have informed the complainant of the action taken but could not disclose personal information without public interest justifications.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the requested information fell under public interest or if it was protected as personal information.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that employee performance matters are generally private unless a larger public interest is demonstrated.
Result: Complaint disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. request for action details regarding an employee. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. hearing details and respondent's claims regarding employee information. (Para 3) |
| 3. respondent's argument for personal information exemption. (Para 5) |
| 4. commission's observation on information disclosure boundaries. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. clarification on jurisdictional limits under section 18. (Para 9) |
| 6. final decision on complaint disposition. (Para 10) |
O R D E R
1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), The New India Assurance Company Limited, Ludhiana seeking following information:-
“Please send full detail of my letter dated 11-05-2019, which you have taken action against Vinod Kumar Cashier.”
2. The CPIO responded on 17-09-2019. The complainant filed a complaint u/ Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/ Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Hearing:
3. The complainant, Mr. Raj Kumar attended the hearing through audio conferencing. Mr. R M Bhatnagar, CPIO participated in the hearing representing the respondent through audio conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The complainant stated that the CPIO has not provided him action taken on his letter dated 11-05-2019 and therefore, an appropriate action should be initiated against the CPIO for not providing the information till date.
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 investigation details of the third party, Mr. Vinod Kumar Cashier. The given reply was also read out by the respondent.
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 RTI applicant, as it is a matter between employer and employee 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 the complainant has not shown any larger public interest in the matter and hence, the exemption claimed by the CPIO u/ Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 is being upheld.
8. It is further observed that the CPIO should have informed the applicant as to what action was taken on his letter dated 11-05-2019. However, while examining a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the CIC has no jurisdiction to direct disclosure of any information. This legal position has been authoritatively settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr . in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
“30. It has been contended before us by the respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Informa
