Section 8(1)(d) RTI exemption inapplicable to one's own recruitment records; no penalty for PIO's reasonable but erroneous denial without mala fide intent.

Headnote:Under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), particularly Sections 8(1)(d), 18, 20(1), and 20(2), the complainant sought certified copies of specific file pages and related notations concerning his 2007 recruitment and educational qualification relaxation as an Accounts Officer in a public authority. The CPIO denied disclosure claiming the file was confidential and exempt as a private document, a stance upheld by the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The Commission found the exemption inapplicable, questioning the denial's intent, and issued show cause notices to PIOs for potential penalties. The core issue was whether personal recruitment file pages concerning the seeker's own selection process qualified for exemption under Section 8(1)(d) as 'information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property' whose disclosure would harm third parties' competitive position. The Commission noted the initial denial was misconceived, as the information related solely to the complainant, not others, rendering the exemption invalid. PIOs' explanations clarified no mala fide intent existed, supported by High Court precedent that penalties require absence of reasonable cause, not mere error. Show cause notices dropped; information provided to complainant; custodian and FAA admonished for misapplication of law; public authority directed to conduct RTI training.

Information sought:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.03.2023 seeking the following information:

“Following information may kindly provide under Right to Information Act-2005: -

In accordance with the recruitment notice of DVC bearing no. PLR-Advt/2007/- 1291 dated 03-09-2007 and subsequent corrigendum bearing no. PLR- Advt./2007/-1296 dated 06-09-2007, I had applied for the post of Accounts Officer/Finance Officer (M2) against post no. 2007/D-5. After passing through selection process, I was appointed as Accounts Officer (M2) on 07-12-2007. During selection process, relaxation of educational qualification against my candidature has been proposed by the then Director (HRD) on 07-11-2007 and the same was approved by the then Secretary, DVC as appointing authority on 12-11-2007 in the page vide no. C/211 & C/212 of File No. PLR-28/Accounts/23. Under Right to Information Act-2005, I would like to request you to provide certified copies of page no. C/211 & C/212 of File No. PLR- 28/Accounts/23 and the certified copies of entire file noting which contains anything related to me in the file bearing no. PLR- 28/Accounts/23.”

The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 01.04.2023 stating as under: “Reply your RTI application bearing no. DVCOR/R/E/23/00047 has been received by the office of the CPIO, DVC, Kolkata. The required information as sought in your application has been received from concerned HR Department.

The reply that has been received is enclosed here with.

This disposes of your letter no. DVCOR/R/E/23/00047 made under the RTI Act, 2005.”

The contents of the enclosure are as under:

“Dear Madam Please find the reply against RTI query in respect of RTI No.00047, as following: "The File No. PLR-28/Accounts/23 is a confidential file and cannot be treated as public document. Hence the Information sought in the aforesaid RTI i.e. certified copies of pages from the File No. PLR-28/Accounts/23 are exempted from disclosure of information under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act."”

Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 04.04.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 18.04.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing on 22.07.2024:

The following were present:-

Complainant: Present through VC.

Respondent: Ms. Soma Mondal, DGM-cum-CPIO, attended the hearing through VC.

The Complainant stated that the exemption claimed by the CPIO vide letter dated 01.04.2023 is not adequate. He added that he is working as Manager, and he requires this information because level 13 promotion was not given to him.

The Respondent appeared at the VC site after one hour of the conclusion of the hearing and the Commission admonishes her for such an unpunctual behaviour. She submitted that the reply provided by the then CPIO, Ms. Sangita Sil, vide letter dated 01.04.2023, is not adequate. She further added that she is not the actual custodian of the information and Ms. Nafisa Bano, Manager, (HR), presently is the custodian of the relevant record who is also supposed to attend the instant hearing, but she did not come. She further volunteered to provide the relevant information to the Complainant after obtaining it from the custodian of the records under Section 5 (4) of the RTI Act.

A written submission has been received from Ms. Soma Mondal, DGM-cum- CPIO, vide letter dated 21.07.2024, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:

“With due respect, reference may kindly be made to the notice of hearing served by the Dy. Registrar on behalf of the Hon'ble CIC bearing no. CIC/DVCOR/C/2023/622866 dated 03/07/2024 on the appeal of Shri Pravash Chandra Mondal. In compliance with the Notice of Hearing, the following written statement is placed before your good office for kind information please.

1. RTI application dated 06/03/2023 was submitted by Shri Pravash Chandra Mondal, requested for providing note sheet, related

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 3967

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONVinod Kumar Tiwari, Information CommissionerPravash Chandra Mondal – AppellantVersusPIO Damodar Valley Corporation – RespondentCIC/DVCOR/C/2023/622866

Section 8(1)(d) RTI exemption inapplicable to one's own recruitment records; no penalty for PIO's reasonable but erroneous denial without mala fide intent.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Information Commissioner
Pravash Chandra Mondal – Appellant
Versus
PIO Damodar Valley Corporation – Respondent
CIC/DVCOR/C/2023/622866