SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 11939

के(cid:3)(cid:4)ीयसचू नाआयोग Central Information Commission , बाबागंगनाथमाग(cid:19) मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka , New Delhi – 110067 नई(cid:21)द(cid:23)ली

/Second Appeal No. CIC/DOEAF/A/2020/670068 ि(cid:26)तीयअपीलसं(cid:30)या

Mr. Varun Krishna … /Appellant अपीलकता(cid:19) VERSUS बनाम CPIO … /Respondent (cid:31)ितवादी

M/o. Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, North Block, New Delhi-110001 Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-














RTI : 27-02-2020FA : 30-03-2020SA : 10-05-2020
CPIO : 20-03-2020FAO : 22-04-2020Hearing: 09-12-2021

O R D E R

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) M/o. Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, North Block, New Delhi. The appellant seeking information pertaining to Shri Rajiv Ranjan Singh who is working in C & C division as PIO is as under:-

1. Complete file noting pertaining to transfer of Shri Rajiv Ranjan Singh in C & C Division of Department of Economic Affairs along with the copy of transfer order.

2. Grounds available in records based upon which his transfer orders are not uploaded on Website u/s 4.1. b suo moto disclosure.

3. Kindly provide official mobile number of Shri Rajiv Ranjan Singh along with month wise amount of mobile phone bill paid.”

2. The CPIO vide letter dated 20-03-2020 provided point-wise reply to the appellant. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has filed first appeal dated 30-03-2020 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAO vide order dated 22-04-2020 upheld CPIOs reply and disposed the appeal. He has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to him and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.

Hearing:

3. The appellant did not attend the hearing as he has informed the registry to decide the case on merits. The respondent, Ms. Jessie Jacob, present CPIO/ Under Secretary (C & C Division) along with Shri Manish Kumar, CPIO/ Under Secretary (Admin.) and Shri P P Ravi, Section Officer/ RTI Cell attended the hearing through audio-call.

4. The respondent submitted their written submissions and the same has been taken on record.

5. Shri Manish Kumar submitted that vide their letter dated 20.03.2020, w.r.t the information sought at point no. 1 of the RTI Application, then CPIO has informed the appellant that “Shri Rajiv Ranjan has been posted in C & C Division vide their department order dated 16.07.2019 in pursuance to DoPT order dated 01.07.2019.” That the relevant documents in this regard has already been provided to the appellant. That w.r.t the information sought at point no. 2 of the RTI Application, “transfer orders of employees of the Department are uploaded on the internal KMS portal.” That vide their written submission dated 07.12.2021, the present CPIO further clarified that w.r.t the information sought at point no. 3 of the RTI Application, the then CPIO has already informed the appellant that Shri Rajeev Ranjan has not been allotted any official mobile no. and has not been paid any amount in this regard. That a copy of written submission has already been provided to the appellant.

Decision:

6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought information pertaining to Shri Rajiv Ranjan Singh who is working in C & C division as PIO and documents from it. The answering respondent has informed that they have already provided relevant documents including notesheets and transfer orders related to the transfer of Shri Rajiv Ranjan Singh to the appellant. That the Commission is of the opinion that transfer related documents are the personal information of third party which should not have been disclosed to the appellant as it’s a matter between an employee and employer which cannot be disclosed to any other person.

7. In this regard, the Commission referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated

03/10/2012 wherein it was held as under:

“13......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. On the other h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top