Disclosure of personal information under RTI is exempt unless larger public interest is established.

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.01.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 13.02.2024 stating as under:

3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.03.2024.

The FAA vide its order dated 28.03.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

File No CIC/CCITL/A/2024/120727

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 15.01.2024

CPIO replied on : 13.02.2024

First appeal filed on : 05.03.2024

First Appellate Authority’s order : 27.03.2024

2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 24.06.2024 Information sought:

5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.01.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:

6. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 13.02.2024 stating as under:

7. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.03.2024.

The FAA vide its order dated 27.03.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.

8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent despite notice.

Respondent: Shri Suresh Kumar Saroj, Assistant Commissioner/CPIO, appeared through video conference.

9. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeals on Respondent while filing the same in CIC is not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service. Thus, Regulation No. 10 of the Central Information Commission Management Regulations 2007 has not been complied with by the Appellant.

10. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought pertains to a third-party and was therefore denied under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act. It was stated that the Appellant has not disclosed any relationship with the concerned third-party nor established any larger public interest. The Respondent further submitted that, at the time of furnishing the reply, the departmental inquiry was pending; however, the inquiry has since been concluded and a major penalty has been imposed on the concerned officer. All relevant documents were provided to the Charged Officer in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

11. In addition to the above oral submissions, the Respondent has also filed written submissions placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., reported in (2013) 1 SCC 212 . The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced below:

12. 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 organisation orga 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 or 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.

13