O R D E R

FACTS

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points, as under:-

The CPIO vide letter dated 22.01.2019 informed the Appellant that personal information which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of individual could not be furnished. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated

13.03.2019 , upheld the reply of the CPIO. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide information, free of cost.

HEARING: Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present: Appellant: Mr. M Manimaran present through AC, Respondent : Absent.

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, the hearing of the matter was scheduled through audio conference after giving prior notice to both the parties.

The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI applications and stated that no satisfactory reply was received from the Respondent as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. He requested the Commission to direct the public authority to furnish correct and satisfactory information to him.

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 hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right. ”

Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy Gen. Manager v. C.S. Shyam, Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009 dated 31.08.2017 had held as under:

“5) The information was sought on 15 parameters with regard to various aspects of transfers of clerical staff and staff of the Bank with regard to individual employees. This information was in relation to the personal details of individual employee such as the date of his/her joining, designation, details of promotion earned, date of his/her joining to the Branch where he/she is posted, the authorities who issued the

transfer orders etc. etc

11) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the application submitted by the 1st respondent under Section 6 of the Act.

12) In our considered opinion, the issue involved herein remains no more res integra and stands settled by two decisions of this Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794, 5 it may not be necessary to re-examine any legal issue urged in this appeal.

14) In our considered opinion, the aforementioned principle of law applies to the facts of this case on all force. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the information sought by respondent No.1 of individual employees working in the Bank was personal in nature; secondly, it was exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(j) of the Act and lastly, neither respondent No.1 disclosed any public inter