Information pertaining to disciplinary proceedings, corruption complaints, and performance reports of public servants constitutes personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and is exempt from disclosure absent a clear demonstration of overriding larger public interest.

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:24)ी, New Delhi – 110067 File No: CIC/DGVCE/A/2024/649627 Anirudh Sharma .….अपीलकता(cid:18)/Appellant VERSUS बनाम CPIO, Directorate General of Vigilance (Hqrs), Indirect Taxes and Customs, Hotel Samrat, Kautilya Marg, Chankyapuri, New Delhi – 110021 ….(cid:29)ितवादीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 19.05.2026 Date of Decision : 19.05.2026 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 19.07.2024 CPIO replied on : 26.07.2024 First appeal filed on : 26.07.2024 First Appellate Authority’s order : 22.08.2024 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 09.10.2024 Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.07.2024 (online) seeking the following information:

“DGGI UDAIPUR RAJASTHAN COMPAINT FOR HARRSEMENT CORRUPTION CHARGES JANCH REPORT COPIES COPIES OF COMPLAINT AGAINST DGGI UDAIPUR APRIL 2019 TO 15 JULY 2024”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 26.07.2024 stating as under:

“आपके (cid:5)वारा दायर (cid:11)कया गया उपरो(cid:15)त आरट(cid:18)आई आवेदन मे मांगी गई जानकार(cid:18) डीजीजीआई, उदयपुर (राज(cid:27)थान) मे उ(cid:29)पीड़न और !टाचार के आरोप# के $लए $शकायत जांच (रपोट) क* +,तयां और माह अ+लै 2019 से 15 जुलाई, 2024 तक डीजीजीआई उदयपुर के 1खलाफ $शकायत क* +,तयां आर.ट(cid:18).आई. अ4ध,नयम, 2005 क* धारा 8(1)(ज) के तहत +दान नह(cid:18)ं क* जा सकती।

The information sought in the above RTI Application filed by you i.e. copies of complaint investigation report for allegations of harassment and corruption in DGGI, Udaipur (Rajasthan) and copies of complaint against DGGI, Udaipur from April, 2019 to 15th July, 2024 cannot be provided under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.”

3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.07.2024.

The FAA vide its order dated 22.08.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.

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

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent Respondent: Shri Nema Ram Manda, Asst. Commissioner/CPIO; Shri M. Guneshwar Singh, Superintendent and Shri Sagar Khitauliya, Inspector appeared in person.

5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 09.10.2024 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.

6. The Respondent official while defending their case inter alia submitted that the CPIO has provided detailed written submission dated 23.04.2026 explaining facts of the case, copy of the same is marked to the Appellant and requested the Commission to place the same on record. The relevant paras of the submission are reproduced as under:

“7.1 The information sought in the above RTI Application dated 19.07.2026 filed by the applicant i.e. copies of complaint investigation report for allegations of harassment and corruption in DGGI, Udaipur (Rajasthan) and copies of complaint against DGGI, Udaipur from April, 2019 to 15th July, 2024 were denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

➤ Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005 exempts disclosure of personal information that has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or causes unwarranted invasion of privacy. It balances privacy with public interest, allowing disclosure only if the PIO is satisfied that a larger public interest justifies it.

7.2 I find that the appellant has not demonstrated how disclosure would serve any larger public interest. Moreover, disclosure w