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, Mumbai seeking following information:-

“Please send full detail of my letter dated 04-06-2019, which you have taken action against Vinod Kumar Cashier.”

2. The CPIO responded on 17-09-2019 & 23-04-2021. 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 04-06-2019 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 04-06-2019. 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 Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of