के (cid:574)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग(cid:330), मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:671)ी, New Delhi – 110067 File No: CIC/SWRLY/A/2024/113741 J. P. Samal .….अपीलकता(cid:330)/Appellant VERSUS बनाम CPIO, South Western Railway O/o Divisional Railway Managers, Divisional Office, Personnel Branch, Hubli – 580 020 ….(cid:366)ितवादीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 14.01.2026 Date of Decision : 14.01.2026 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Swagat Das Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 21.12.2023 CPIO replied on : 22.12.2023 First appeal filed on : 01.02.2024 First Appellate Authority’s order : 06.03.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 02.04.2024 Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.12.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:

“Shri Amit G patil HTC/GPB PF no. 07353777 HRMS ID QEXRZK Serve SF- 11 during April/May 2022. TCR Book not maintained and penalty order.

Copy of both SF-11 and penalty order. ”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 22.12.2023 stating as under:

“The information asked cannot be provided as Section 11 and Rule 8(1)(j)

of RTI Act. 2005, being 3^rd party information.”

3. The Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.02.2024. The FAA disposed of first appeal vide order dated 06.03.2024.

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 along with his authorized representative Shri Anto Abheshek.

Respondent: Ms. Ranga Nayaki, APO & APIO present through Video-

Conference.

5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 02.04.2024 is not available on record.

Respondent confirms non-service.

6. Written submissions of the Appellant and the Respondent are taken on record.

7. The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that till date information has not been provided to him and the same was wrongly denied by the Respondent. The Appellant further expressed his grievance that a lesser punishment was imposed upon the third party, whereas a major punishment was awarded to him, and stated that it is for this reason that he is seeking the information under the RTI Act.

8. The Respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 22.12.2023, they have categorically informed the Appellant that the information sought by him is personal information of third-party and is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The FAA had also upheld the reply given by the PIO. The Respondent further apprised the Commission that consent under Section 11 of the RTI Act was sought from third-party, but he had denied disclosure of the same to the Appellant.

Decision:

9. The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the core contention raised by the Appellant in the instant Second Appeal was non-receipt of information from the Respondent. In this regard, it was noted that reply in the matter has already been provided to the Appellant.

10. The Commission observes that the Appellant had asked information which is related to personal information of third party which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has not disclosed any larger public interest in disclosing the information.

11. The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section

8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:

“8. Exemption from disclosure of information.—

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxxx (j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public In