Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Shri Muraleedharan R. v. Public Information O...

Central Information Commission

Sep 27, 2021

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Smart Summary (Beta)

Commission for Information — Written Decision by Y.K. Sinha, CIC

Factual and Procedural Background

The opinion consolidates and disposes of five Second Appeals filed by the Appellant against responses to several RTI applications addressed to the CPIO/Administrative Officer-III, DAE, General Services Organisation (GSO). The matters carry case numbers including CIC/GSOKP/A/2019/639236, CIC/GSOKP/C/2019/644352, CIC/GSOKP/A/2020/661831, CIC/GSOKP/A/2020/664348 and CIC/GSOKP/A/2020/697892.

Broadly, the Appellant's RTI applications (dated between January 2019 and October 2020) sought information on multiple points concerning call duties, acknowledgements of call duty acceptance, details of employees attending call duties and related service matters, records of journeys, blood bag statistics, disciplinary charge-sheets and inquiries, and benefits withheld for non-attendance of call duties.

The CPIO responded to the RTI requests by: (a) forwarding some requests to the Medical Superintendent, DAE Hospital, Kalpakkam; (b) furnishing point-wise replies; (c) indicating fees for copies; (d) declining or limiting disclosure in certain instances on the basis that requests were repetitive, related to personal information or were being used for private/self-interest rather than public interest (citing Section 8(1)(j) and prior Commission guidance). The CPIO also stated that the Public Authority was not obliged to create new compilations of information beyond records maintained.

The Appellant filed First Appeals against the CPIO responses. The FAA/Chief Administrative Officer, GSO considered the FAA appeals on different dates and (i) upheld many of the CPIO's replies as consistent with the RTI Act, (ii) directed provision of certain information "to the extent available" subject to payment of applicable charges, and (iii) in one instance directed provision of date(s) of appointment of Inquiry Officer within ten days. In several FAA orders the Appellate Authority advised the Appellant to desist from repeated RTI queries and to pursue grievance redressal in appropriate forums.

Aggrieved by the outcomes, the Appellant filed the instant Second Appeals before the Central Information Commission. The Commission conducted virtual hearings (due to COVID-19) and received written submissions from the CPIO reiterating the factual and procedural position described above.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the information sought by the Appellant in the various RTI applications was information "held" under the RTI Act and therefore subject to disclosure under the Act.
Whether repetitive RTI requests and requests made for the Appellant's private/self-interest (as opposed to public interest) can be refused or treated as not mandating further disclosure by the Public Authority.
Whether matters that amount to inter se disputes between employer and employee (service-related grievances and requests for relief/remedies) fall within the purview of the RTI Act or are outside its scope.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The Appellant advanced multiple service-related grievances against the Respondent, including that the Respondent insisted on increasing duty hours beyond eight hours and other employment-related complaints; he sought information to support/allege service irregularities and to obtain records relevant to his grievances.
During hearings the Appellant elaborated that he had various service-related grievances and asserted that the RTI responses did not adequately address those complaints (leading to the Second Appeals).

Respondent / CPIO's Arguments

The CPIO maintained that many queries were repetitive compared to earlier RTI applications and represented an improper use of the RTI Act for private interest, thereby causing wastage of public resources.
The CPIO furnished point-wise replies and, where appropriate, asked for prescribed fees for providing copies (specific amounts noted in the record for particular requests).
The CPIO relied on exemptions under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to withhold personal information where disclosure had no relation to public interest.
The CPIO stated that it is not obliged to create new compilations of information beyond existing records, and in one instance indicated that certain information (e.g., number of blood bags used for transfusion) was not readily available in the records.
In earlier correspondence the CPIO invoked a Commission decision (dated 25.02.2016, Application No. CIC/SA/A/2015/001849) to support the view that repeated or frivolous RTI requests need not be entertained.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Central Information Commission decision dated 25.02.2016 (Application No. CIC/SA/A/2015/001849)	That public authorities should not cause wastage of public resources in responding to repeated, frivolous and harassing RTI applications; justification for not furnishing information used for private/self-interest.	Invoked by the CPIO in correspondence to justify not providing information and to treat the Appellant's requests as repetitive and for self-interest rather than public interest.
Predecessor Bench order: CIC/GSOKP/A/2018/624800-BJ, order dated 04.03.2020	Applied the principle that when the matter is essentially a service grievance between employer and employee, the Commission need not intervene and the aggrieved party should approach the appropriate forum for redressal.	The Commission noted that a similar case involving the Appellant's wife had been decided with the observation that no further intervention was required, and cited that earlier decision in assessing the present appeals.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Commission examined the relevant facts across the five consolidated matters. The analysis proceeded along these lines as stated in the opinion:

The Commission identified the "germane issue" in all five cases as being an inter se dispute between employer and employee — i.e., service-related grievances of the Appellant against the Respondent.
The Commission found that the Respondent had, in general, answered the Appellant's queries with information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, and that those replies were provided "within the provisions of the Act."
The Commission reiterated the established distinction that the RTI Act's remit is to provide access to information held in public records and that grievance redressal and dispute resolution lie outside the RTI Act's scope. This principle guided the decision to refrain from further intervention in matters that are essentially service disputes.
The Commission noted prior practice of the Commission (including the predecessor Bench order of 04.03.2020) in similar circumstances, which had advised that affected persons should approach appropriate forums for grievance redressal rather than rely on the RTI mechanism for disputes about service conditions.
Applying these principles to the facts, the Commission concluded that the Appellant had effectively sought redressal of service grievances via RTI and, since information had been provided where appropriate and the remaining matters were service disputes, no further orders from the Commission were warranted.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Commission disposed of the appeals. The opinion states: "The appeals are accordingly disposed off with no further directions."

Implications:

Direct effect on the parties: The Commission will not take further action on these Second Appeals. The Appellant is expected to pursue appropriate forums for redressal of his service-related grievances against the employer (the Respondent), because such grievance redressal and dispute resolution fall outside the scope of the RTI Act.
Scope of RTI reiterated: The decision reinforces the Commission's position that the RTI Act is intended to provide access to information in public records and is not a substitute for grievance or dispute resolution mechanisms for employer-employee matters.
Precedential effect: The opinion does not formulate a new legal doctrine beyond applying established Commission practice; the practical consequence is the rejection of further intervention in these appeals and direction to the Appellant to seek remedies in appropriate forums. (The opinion does not announce any novel precedent-setting principle beyond these conclusions.)

This summary is based exclusively on the content of the provided opinion and does not add or infer information beyond that text.

Show all summary ...

Y.K. Sinha, CIC:—

Information sought and background of the case:

(1) CIC/GSOKP/A/2019/639236

(2) CIC/GSOKP/C/2019/644352

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.01.2019 seeking information on 16 points, including the following:—

1) Kindly provide the certified copies of the acknowledgement to accept call duties, from Medical Officers and staff members in DAE, Hospital, Kalpakkam, during the period from 22.01.2015 to 03.01.2019.

2) Kindly provide the certified copies of the acknowledgement to accept call duties, from staff members in Pathology division of Medical group, GSO during the period from 08.12.2011 to 29.08.2018.

3) Kindly provide the details of Name, IC Number & Designation of the employee who attended more number of call duties in Pathology division of Medical group, GSO during the period from 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018.

4) Kindly provide the details of Name, IC Number & Designation of the employee who attended more number of call duties in one day in Pathology division of Medical group of GSO during the period from 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018.

5) Kindly provide the details of Name & IC Number of Scientific Assistant who took least number of leaves in Pathology division of Medical group, GSO during the period from 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018.

6) Kindly provide the certified copies of CCS rules which mentioning about 24 hour bound duties and/or call duties.

7) Kindly provide the details of Name, IC Number and Designation of the employee who performed more number of clinical laboratory tests during call duties in GSO from the period 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2018.

8) Kindly provide the details of the acts of governments servant (after office work hours) makes him unbecoming of a Government servant, thereby contravene the provisions of Rule 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rule, 1964. Etc.

2. The CPIO/Administrative Officer-III, GSO vide letter dated 05.02.2019 forwarded the RTI application to Medical Superintendent, DAE Hospital, Kalpakkam for providing a reply and on receipt of the same will be forwarded to the Appellant.

3. Further, the CPIO/Administrative Officer-III, GSO vide letter dated 20.02.2019 furnished the reply as under:—

2. On careful perusal of your application, it is noticed that, queries raised by you in above said RTI applications are repeated in nature compared with earlier RTI applications filled by you on the same subject and hence, the applicant may please note that citizen has no right to repeat application, even a single repetition of RTI application would demand the valuable time of the Public Authority. Further, using the RTI Act for self-interest, without any public interest cannot be entertained.

4. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.02.2019. The FAA/Chief Administrative Officer, GSO vide order dated 20.06.2019 held that the replies furnished by CPIO, GSO vide letter dated 20.02.2019 in respect of points no. 3 to 9 & 12 to 15 are in order and consistent with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. As far as point no. 16 is concerned, call duties are assigned as per functional requirements of the concerned units. Further, as regards point no. 1, 2, 10 & 11, the FAA directed the CPIO to provide information to the extent available within a week of the receipt of the order on payment of applicable charges.

5. A letter dated 26.06.2019 is found on record (CIC/GSOKP/C/2019/644352) from CPIO, DAE whereby a point-wise reply was furnished to the Appellant and he was asked to deposit Rs. 68/- to obtain copies of the documents.

6. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

7. Written submissions have been received from CPIO/Admn. Officer-III, DAE, General Services Organisation vide letter dated 22.09.2021 reiterating the above facts.

(3) CIC/GSOKP/A/2020/661831

8. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.10.2019 which was responded to by the CPIO/Administrative Officer-III, vide letter dated 22.11.2019 replied as under:—

S. NO. QUERY RESPONSE 1. Kindly provide the following details : Total number of holidays (including weekly off) eligible for Muraleedharan R. from 06.06.2011 to 07.12.2011 The Applicant has sought information through RTI Act about his own benefits availed for his self-interest, without any public interest and trying to misuse the RTI Act just for the sake of vengeance and causing wastage of public resources in responding to repeated queries. As per the Central Information Commission decision dated 25.02.2016 against the Application No. CIC/SA/A/2015/001849. it was indicated that the respondent authority not to cause wastage of public resources in responding to a repeated, frivolous and harassing RTI Application. In view of the above, there Is no need to furnish any information to the quiries, as it is for his self-interest without any public interest. 2. Total number of holidays (including weekly off) eligible for Muraleedharan R. (IC Number 52132) from 08.12.2011 to 31.08.2018 3. Total number of holidays (including weekly off) from 06.06.2011 to 07.12.2011 during which Muraleedharan R. assigned to ittend call duties 4. Total number of holidays (including weekly off) from 08.12.2011 to 31.08.2018 during which Muraleedharan R. (Ic. Number 52132) assigned to attend call duties) 5. Total number of holidays (including weekly off) from 06.06.2011 to 07.12.2011 during which Muraleedharan R. attend the call duties. 6. Total number of holidays (including weekly off) from 08.12.2011 to 31.08.2018 during which Muraleedharan R. (IC Number 52132) attend the call duties. 7. Total number of compensatory off availed by Muraleedharan R. from 06.06.2011, 07.11.2011 8. Total number of compensatory off availed by Muraleedharan R. from 08.12.2011 to 31.08.2018 9. Details of the monetary benefits availed by Muraleedharan R. for attend the call duties from 06.06.2011 to 07.12.2011 10. Details of the monetary benefits availed by Muraleedharan R. for attending the call duties from 08.12.2011 to 31.08.2018 11. Details of the any facilities or benefits availed by Muraleedharan R. for attending the call duties from 06.06.2011 to 07.12.2011 12. Details of the any facilities or benefits availed by Muraleedharan R. (IC Number 52132) for attending the call duties from 08.12.2011 to 31.08.2018

9. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.11.2019. The FAA/Chief Administrative Officer, GSO passed an order dated 14.01.20120 holding that the call duties are assigned as per the requirement of the Medical Group, Section 24 of RTI is not relevant in the case and does not warrant intervention. Further, FAA advised the Appellant to desist making repeated RTI Queries and approach concerned authorities for redressal of grievances, if any.

10. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

11. Written submissions have been received from CPIO/Admn. Officer-III, DAE, General Services Organisation vide letter dated 22.09.2021 reiterating the above facts, about information having been provided to the Appellant.

(4) CIC/GSOKP/A/2020/664348

12. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.11.2019 which was responded to by the CPIO/Administrative Officer-III, vide letter dated 19.12.2019 as under:—

SL. NO. Query Reply 1. Kindly provide the details of benefits and/or facilities stopped for Muraleedharan R. (IC Number 52132) for not attending the call duties. As per Para 8.1(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, the information sought by the applicant could be denied as it 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. 2. Kindly provide the details of works and/or duties that performing by Technician (Lab) and Foreman (Lab) during call duties in the Pathology section. Medical group, Gso. 3. Kindly provide the following details regarding journey in the Vehicle No TN 04 AV 8653 that travelled distance more than 100 km/day during the period from January 2019 to present a) Full details of the purpose of journey b) The name and designation of the employees c) The name and designation of the employees who mostly travelled and the number of occasions d) the places from where journey started e) the places at where journey ended The 88 pages document shall be provided on payment of Rs. 176/- (i.e. Rs. 2 per page) 4. Total number of blood bags received in the Pathology section of DAE Hospital. Kalpakkam, from July 2014 to present Number of blood bags received from July 2014 to August 2019 : are 318 Bags. 5. Total number of blood bags disposed in the Pathology section of DAE Hospital. Kalpakkam. from July 2014 to present Blood Bags from Blood Banks have been received after cross matching it to the required patients only. The number of blood bags used for transfusion is not readily available.

13. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.01.2020. The FAA/Chief Administrative Officer, GSO vide order dated 18.02.2020 decided the First Appeal as under:—

3. I have noted that CPIO, GSO vide Note No. GSO/55(2)/RTI/2019-20/1555 dated 22.11.2019 has informed Appellant that the requisite information for Query No. 1 cannot be provided under 8(1)(j) of RTI Act as the information sought by the Applicant was relates to personal information and the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. However, the Appellant has made an Appeal on 06.01.2020 stating that the information provided by CPIO, GSO for Query No. 1 about his own details and he has to submit the same to Honourable Court. Since information sought by the Appellant has no relationship to any public activity or interest, the reply by CPIO, GSO vide Note dated 19.12.2019 in respect of Point No. 1 is consistent with the provisions of RTI Act, 2005, and does not warrant any intervention by the undersigned.

4. As regards Query No. 3 on extract of information, it is to state that the CPIO is not expected to create or collate information. The 88 pages document is being provided by the CPIO on payment of the prescribed fees as per the provisions of RTI Act. 2005.

5. As regards Query No. 5, the number of blood bags used for transfusion is not readily available. Hence the information could not be provided to the Appellant.

6. The Appellant may please note that the CPIO has taken appropriate action as duty bound so as to reply to the Appellant. There is no infirmity in the action taken by CPIO in this regard. Hence, it does not warrant any intervention by the undersigned.

14. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

15. Written submissions have been received from CPIO/Admn. Officer-III, DAE, General Services Organisation vide letter dated 22.09.2021(12-13) reiterating the above facts.

(5) CIC/GSOKP/A/2020/697892

16. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.10.2020 which was responded to by the CPIO/Administrative Officer-III, vide letter dated 28.10.2020 as under:—

1. Total number of charged memorandum (under rule 14 of CCS (CCA) rules, 1965 issued by Disciplinary Authority of GSO during the period from January 2019 to present Response 6 Nos. of charge sheet have been issued during the period from 01.01.2019 to 01.10.2020. 2. Total number of inquiries (under rule 14 of CCS (CCA rules, 1965) proposed by Disciplinary Authority of GSO for the charge memorandum issued during the period from January, 2019 to present Response 6 Nos. of inquiries have been proposed during the period from 01.01.2019 to 01.10.2020. 3. Details of date of appointment of inquiry officer for each inquiry, which were proposed during the period from January 2019 to present Response The information sought relates to personal information of third parties, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public interest and is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005. 4. Time frame within which an inquiry (under rule 14 of CCS (CCA) rules. 1965) is to be completed by the Inquiry Officer 5. Time frame for each steps of an inquiry (under rule 14 of CCS (CCA) rules, 1965) Response for 4 & 5 The Time frame of the enquiry and each steps of enquiry are as stipulated in CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and various O.Ms issued by DoPT from time to time. 6. Total number of inquiries (under rule 14 of CCS (CCA) rules, 1965 completed for the charge memorandum issued during the period from January 2019 to present Response No enquiries have been completed against the charge sheet issued for the said period. 7. Details of reasons for, if any, inquiries not completed within time frame after appointing Inquiry officers during the period from January 2019 to present. Response “The definition of information cannot include within its fold answers to the question “why” which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as Information”. 8. Details of benefits which will be stopped, for the Charged Officials of GSO, while issuing charged memorandum (under rule 14 of CCS (CCA rules, 1965) by Disciplinary Authority of GSO. Response All the benefits as stipulated under CCS (CCA) Rules and various O.Ms issued by DoPT from time to time.

17. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.11.2020. The FAA/Chief Administrative Officer, GSO vide order dated 16.12.2020 held as under:—

a) Point No. 1: In response to query 3, The Appellant may note that, CPIO has informed that the information sought relates to personal information of third parties the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public interest and is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005, hence the information is not provided However, it is observed that the Appellant had requested to provide date of appointment of Inquiry Officer as against details of date of appointment of Inquiry Officer in his original RTI application. Now, therefore, the undersigned in the capacity of Appellate Authority for GSO under RTI Act, hereby directs CPIO, GSO to provide the information as with respect to date of appointment of Inquiry Officer sought by the Appellant vide query 3 of his RTI application dated 06.10.2020 within 10 days of receipt of this order.

b) Point No. 2: In response to query 4, 5 and 8 of the RTI Application, the Appellant may note that CPIO has provided the requisite information. However, the Appellant had asked to provide the details of O.Ms of DoPT., which was not part of the original RTI Application, reply for which has been provided by the CPIO. Appellant may please note that request for any additional information, not part of the original application cannot be accepted at Appeal stage under RTI Act. Hence there is no scope for intervention by the Appellate Authority.

18. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

19. Written submissions have been received from CPIO/Admn. Officer-III, DAE, General Services Organisation vide letter dated 22.09.2021 reiterating the above facts.

20. In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, virtual hearings were scheduled through video conference after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through video conference and Appellant states that he is aggrieved because after completion of 8 hours of duty, the Respondent employer insisted on increasing his duty hours. During the course of hearing, the Appellant elaborated his averments which indicate that he has various service related grievances with his employer, the Respondent.

21. It is noted that a similar case had been heard by the Commission as case no.-CIC/GSOKP/A/2018/624800-BJ and decided vide order dated 04.03.2020, wherein the Appellant's wife - Ms. Niveditha J. Kumar had raised similar queries. A predecessor Bench of the Commission had decided the case with a reasoned speaking order, with the following observation:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. For redressal of her grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.

DECISION

22. Upon examining the relevant facts of the abovementioned five cases, the Commission is of the considered opinion that the germane issue in all of the above cases is inter se dispute between the employer and employee, which has given rise to a number of grievances of the Appellant against the Respondent. Facts of the cases clearly depict that queries raised by the Appellant have been answered by the Respondent with information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act within the provisions of the Act. Yet the Appellant has filed Second Appeals seeking redressal of his service-related grievances. As has been often held by the Commission in many similar cases, the realms of both grievance redressal and dispute resolution fall outside the purview of the RTI Act, which is mandated to provide access to information held in public records. The Appellant should accordingly seek appropriate remedy for redressal of his grievances.

23. The appeals are accordingly disposed off with no further directions.