O R D E R
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.01.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Name the officer's penalized with recommendation/s from CVO, BIS.
(ii) Name of the officer/s who were not penalized with recommendation/s from CVO,
BIS.
(iii) Please provide information and relevant paper/s as per the guidelines of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 10.01.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Page 1 of 4
1 / 5
1
i. As per Commission's OM having reference 011/CSC/004/131415 dated 06.06.2011, Sh. MD Chilakwad, Scientist-E and Shri SB Roy, Scientist-F were penalized with recommendation from CVO, BIS.
ii. As per Commission's OM having reference 011/CSC/004/131415 dated 06.06.2011, Sh. Vijay Nitnaware, Scientist-E was not penalized with recommendation from CVO, BIS.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.01.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 10.02.2023 stated that:
On perusal of the records, the CPIO is advised to reconsider the RTI Application fo the Appellant w.r.t. 'relevant paper/s' and dispose it appropriately as per the extant provisions of RTI Act, 2005, within 15 days from the receipt of the order.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 12.04.2023.
5. The appellant attended the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Mr. P. K Mohanty, Director, attended the hearing in person.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the reply furnished by the CPIO on point no. 3 of the RTI application was not in accordance with the information sought in the RTI application. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to furnish the information, as sought.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that a response to the RTI application had been furnished to the appellant vide their letter dated 10.01.2023, wherein, available information had been provided to the appellant. For point no. 3 of the RTI application, the respondent submitted that the appellant had not specified the relevant paper, therefore, information sought had not been provided. He stated that the FAA's order dated 10.02.2023, had also been complied with by the CPIO vide letter dated 21.02.2023. Page 2 of 4
2 / 5
2
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, upholds the reply of the CPIO dated 21.02.2023 w.r.t point no. 3 of the RTI application. The Commission notes that the CPIO has erred in providing the third-party information on point no. 1 and 2 of the RTI application to the appellant. In this regard, the attention of the respondent is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India &; amp; Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive…"
9. In view of the foregoing observations, the Commission finds no scope of relief to be ordered in the matter. However, the CPIO is advised to acquaint themselves well with the provisions of the RTI Act to ensure appropriate disposal of RTI Applications in the future.
Page 3 of 4
3 / 5
3
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/- (Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंंंदं ी राम लंंगंं म)
Information Commissioner (सूूूचू ना आयुुुु
)
दनांक/Date: 13.09.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कनल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO (Under RTI Act, 2005) Central Vigilance Commission, A-Block, GPO Complex, Satarkata Bhavan, INA, New Delhi-110023
2. S. B. Roy Page 4 of 4
4 / 5
4
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) 51 / 15
5