2013 (6) TMI 229 - Commission - Indian Laws

RTI application - records relating to the proposed disciplinary action and/or imposition of penalty against Sri G.S. Narang, IRS, Central Excise and Customs Service - CPIO had denied the information by claiming exemption u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act - Held that - CPIO was not right in denying this information as far as the UPSC is concerned, the Respondent informed, it receives references from the Ministries and Departments in disciplinary matters to give its comments and recommendations on individual cases. In this case too, the UPSC had been consulted and that it had offered its comments and views to the Government. Whatever records it holds in regard to this case will have to be disclosed because this cannot be classified as personal information merely on the ground that it concerns some particular officer. As decided in Centre of Earth Science Studies Versus Dr. Mrs. Anson Sebastian, Scientist, State Information Commission 2010 (2) TMI 986 - KERALA HIGH COURT information sought by an employee, from his employer, in respect of domestic enquiry and confidential reports of his colleagues would not amount to personal information as provided under Section 8(1)(j) of Right to Information (RTI) Act. Thus information regarding the disciplinary matters against any government employee cannot be withheld by claiming it to be personal information. Thus direct the CPIO to invite the Appellant on any mutually convenient date within 15 working days from the receipt of this order and to show him the relevant records in the possession of the UPSC for his inspection & if the Appellant chooses to get the photocopies of some of those records, the CPIO shall provide the same free of cost.

Summary

Issues:
Denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act regarding disciplinary action against a government employee.

Analysis:
The case involved the denial of information by the CPIO under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act regarding disciplinary action against a government employee. The Appellant sought to inspect records related to disciplinary action against a specific officer, which the CPIO denied claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(j). The Appellate Authority also supported this denial. However, after hearing both parties and considering the case details, the Central Information Commission (CIC) found the denial unjustified. The CIC noted that the UPSC, which had been consulted in the case, provided comments and recommendations on disciplinary matters. Referring to a High Court ruling, the CIC emphasized that information on disciplinary matters involving government employees cannot be withheld as personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

The CIC directed the CPIO to allow the Appellant to inspect the relevant records held by the UPSC within 15 working days. The Appellant was also granted the option to obtain photocopies of the records free of cost after inspection. By this decision, the CIC disposed of the appeal, instructing the CPIO to facilitate the Appellant's access to the requested information. The CIC emphasized the importance of transparency in matters concerning disciplinary actions against government employees and reiterated that such information cannot be classified as personal information under the RTI Act.

In conclusion, the CIC's judgment highlighted the duty of public authorities to disclose information related to disciplinary matters involving government employees. The decision underscored the significance of transparency and accountability in such cases, emphasizing that information on disciplinary actions cannot be withheld by categorizing it as personal information. The ruling served to uphold the principles of the RTI Act and ensure access to relevant records for individuals seeking information on disciplinary proceedings within the government sector.