Greater
Kashmir: Srinagar: Tuesday, June 04, 2019.
The
State Information Commission has disposed a case wherein the information seeker
had sought personal information of employees from the Public Information
Officer.
The
appellant had filed the 2nd appeal before the State Information Commission
(SIC) against the First Appellate Authority (FAA) and Public Information
Officer (PIO) Drug and Food Control Organisation, Srinagar. The appeal has been
filed on the grounds that the PIO has failed to submit the information stating
“the information sought cannot be provided as it relates to the personal
information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity
or interest and would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the
individual.”
On
being denied the information, the information seeker filed the first appeal
before the FAA, but he again failed to decide the appeal.
The
appellant approached the commission, at last, and asked the commission to
direct the PIO Drug and Food Control organisation, Srinagar to provide him the
information.
The
commission asked the appellant to specify the names of the employees whose
information he requires “so that the PIO can provide the Information within the
permissible limits under the provisions of the J&K Right to Information
Act,” the order reads.
The
appellant, while responding to the order of the commission, had specified names
of six employees Irfana (Assistant Drug Controller), Imtiyaz (Drug Inspector),
Waseem (Drug Inspector), Younis (ACR Wholesale) and Parvaiz.
But
the PIO while answering the questions of the appellant had said, “This division
doesn’t have any Assistant Drug Controller as Irfana, this division has many
Imtiyaz who are working as Drug Inspector, so please specify complete name.”
The
PIO further states, “This division has many Shahnawaz who are working as Drug
Inspector, so please specify complete name, the designation of Younis is not
ACR Wholesale, Parvaiz has already attained superannuation and retired from the
department.”
The
appellant has sought photocopies of service book of all employees of Drug &
Food Control Department, the information as to how much property are in the
names of the said employees and their family members, copies of tax deduction
certificates from last ten years, copies of transfer orders and copies of their
qualification certificates.
State
Information Commissioner, M Ashraf Mir, while disposing of the case, has
stated, “The expression ‘information’ has been interpreted and deciphered by
the Supreme Court and various other High Courts and also by the Central
Information Commission in numerous judgments including CBSE & Anr. Vs.
Aditya Bandopadhyay &Ors (SC)”, “Khanapuram Gandhia Vs. Administrative
Officer (SC), Dr. Celsa Pinto Vs. Goa State Information Commission (Bombay HC)
and Subrata Guha Ray Vs. CPIO (CIC), to name a few, where it has been held that
all and sundry information cannot be asked for by an applicant under the RTI
Act.”
Moreover,
the order issued by the commissioner reads, “In the case of Girish Ramchandra
Despande Vs CIC & Others [SLP (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012], the Supreme Court
has further held that the information relating to tax deduction details, assets
and liabilities, moveable and immoveable properties, performance of employees,
leave details and transfer details are personal information and matters
primarily between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are
governed by the service rules which fall under the expression “personal
information.”
The
Supreme Court has further held that, “disclosure of such information has no
relation with any public activity or public interest and on the other hand, the
disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of
the concerned employees.”
In
view of the settled position of law, “the information sought by the appellant
through his RTI application dated 16-10-2018 cannot be provided by the PIO as
the same amounts to personal information of the concerned employees. Therefore,
there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly disposed of without
any order or direction,” the order states.