के (cid:574)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग१,मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:671)ी, New Delhi – 110067 ि(cid:554)तीय अपील संূा / Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2024/104300 R N Tembhare … अपीलकता१/Appellant VERSUS बनाम CPIO: Department of Posts, Nagpur, MH …ঋितवादीगण/Respondent Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.09.2023 seeking information on the following points:

1. Copy of Complaint received by DAP Nagpur in C/W my Pay fixation (RN Tembhare) from SC/ST association directly or through SSPOs Amravati.

2. What action thereon with Note Sheet and remark of competent authority.

3. Details of Shri Taksande Accounts Officer Pension DAP Nagpur (ViZ Date of his appointment as AAO/AO, From which date he is working at DAP Nagpur section wise since last Ten Years,)

4. Date of receipt of my Pension case from SSpos Amravati to DAP Nagpur.

5. What action from receipt of my pension case day to day Note sheet and Movement until finalization of AE Remark Dated 01.08.2023.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 25.10.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“Point no. 1. & 2. Copy of complaint not received in this office from SC/ST association either directly or through SSPOs Amravati and hence cannot be furnished.

Point no. 3. Details of Shri. Taksande Accounts officer cannot be furnished under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005 as it will infringe the right to privacy of the concerned officer.

Point no. 4. Your pension case from the SSPOs Amravati received in this office on

29/5/2023.

Point no. 5. Copy of notesheet is enclosed herewith.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.11.2023. The FAA vide order dated 06.12.2023 stated as under:-

“Reply given by the CPIO is correct and upheld. However, the CPIO is hereby directed to obtain consent from the AO Pension Shri. Vishal Taksande for furnishing his details of his professional tenure in this office. And you are also requested to make an appointment with the CPIO and decide about the date and time for inspecting the records. For inspection of records, the public authority will charge no fee for the first hour. But a fee of rupees 5/- for each subsequent hour (or fraction of) shall be charged as per RTI Act 2005.”

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 30.01.2024.

5. The appellant’s representative and on behalf of the respondent Chandrashekhar, Senior Accounts Officer, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant’s representative inter alia submitted that he was denied the information sought under points 1 to 3 of his RTI application. Under points 1 and 2, he had requested a copy of his complaint relating to pay fixation received from the SC/ST Association in the respondent’s office and details of the action taken thereon. In point 3, he sought information pertaining to an Accounts Officer, including details of his appointment, which was denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted with respect to points 1 and 2, that the complaint referred to by the appellant was not received in their office, and the appellant was duly informed of the same. As regards point 3, the respondent stated that the information sought related to the personal details of a third party and was, therefore, exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Upon being queried by the Commission regarding compliance with the FAA’s direction to seek the consent of the concerned officer for disclosure, the respondent submitted that although the information qualifies as exempt third-party information, the specific det