Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 2624
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, IC
Rahul Singh – Appellant
Versus
CPIO, Garrison Engineer, Military Engineer Services – Respondent
CIC/MESER/A/2024/607737
For the Appellant: Unrepresented
For the Respondent: Shri Sartaj Ali
Public officials' fundamental employment details are not protected from disclosure under RTI when public interest allegations arise.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 8(1)(j) - Information sought regarding attendance details of an employee is personal information and not subject to disclosure, unless a nexus with public interest is established. The Commission directs disclosure of basic employment information not protected by privacy concerns. (Paras 7 and 8)
(B) Personal Information - Exemption under Section 8(1)(j) - Attendance records generally considered private unless public interest is demonstrated. Respondent must comply with order for basic employment details as allegations of misconduct were raised. (Paras 8)
Facts of the case:
Appellant filed an RTI application regarding employee conduct and sought personal employment details necessary to address the complaint. Initial denial of information based on personal data protections. FAAs order partly supported by the Commission.
Findings of Court:
The Commission ruled that while personal attendance records are protected under RTI, basic employment details must be disclosed when public interest allegations are present. A compromise between privacy and accountability is necessary as per legal precedents.
Issues: Whether detailed employee records can be withheld under personal privacy; is there a public interest in the information sought?
Ratio Decidendi: The disclosure of basic employment details is required for public accountability when serious allegations are made, despite general privacy protections granted by the RTI Act.
Result: The Commission directed the Respondent to provide the requested employment information.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial details of the rti application and responses. (Para 1) |
| 2. request for information regarding employee conduct. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. dispute over information denial as personal. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. disclosure of basic employment details justified by public interest. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. appeal resolved with specific directives for information provision. (Para 9) |
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:24)ी, New Delhi – 110067 File No: CIC/MESER/A/2024/607737 Rahul Singh .….अपीलकता(cid:18)/Appellant VERSUS बनाम CPIO, Garrison Engineer, Military Engineer Services, Dronachal, Noori Hills, Bhopal-462038 ….(cid:29)ितवादीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 01.07.2025 Date of Decision : 09.07.2025 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 02.01.2024 CPIO replied on : 16.01.2024 First appeal filed on : 03.02.2024 First Appellate Authority’s order : 07.02.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 23.02.2024 Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed RTI application dated 02.01.2024 an (online) seeking the following information:
“This is with deep regret, I hereby would like to bring to your kind notice that one of your employees named Tinkoo Kumar, working in capacity of Pump Operator based at Dronachal Top, Neori Hills, Bhopal is often found at his native, Patna. Unsure of his leaves whether these are authorized or unauthorized. He is currently here in Patna for more than 15 days. During this period, he was doing a lot of bad practices those are absolutely not in fine with MES guidelines. Below are few for your reference.
1. He is quoting himself as a Colonel in defence service.
2. He threatens people with this quoted status as Colonel.
3. He mentions that he gets salary for using all unparliamentary words.
4. He takes too much Ganja and says that office has given him approval to do this.
5. Many more and can be discussed or shared if required.
With this, I request you to take an appropriate action and help us with below details to take legal action.
1. Attendance report for the last 3 months.
2. His date of joining
3. His current designation or salary.
4. Educational documents.”
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 16.01.2024 stating as under:
“(a) "Third party information is basically individual's personal information which concerned department (from whom information is sought) cannot be disclosed to an applicant who has sought such information under Right to information act 2005 under Section 8 (1) (j)".”
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.02.2024.
The FAA vide its order dated 07.02.2024, held as under:
“1. As the information sought at Para 1 of the subject RTI does not come under third party information, Respondent is directed to provide the information to the Appellant by 15 Feb 2024 without fail.
2. Information sought under Para 2-5 of the subject RTI cannot be provided being third party information/ personal information.”
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Shri Sartaj Ali, Assistant Garrison Engineer, appeared through video conference.
5. The Appellant inter alia submitted that information sought was arbitrarily denied by the Respondent till the date of hearing.
6. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought was withheld being personal in nature and protected under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that the Appellant sought information regarding an MES employee, Shri Tinkoo Kumar, including details such as attendance records, date of joining, salary, designation, and educational documents, along with allegations concerning his conduct and misuse of authority. The
