9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 1225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst him for not providing the information sought by him. 3. By an order dated 6th July, 2009, this Court while directing notice to issue in this writ petition stayed the operation of the impugned order subject to the Petitioner depositing Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation costs for the Respondent. 4. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Rajiv Kapur, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the Respondent who appears in person. 5. The background to the present petition is that on 25th January, 2007 the Respondent who is working as Special Assistant in the Chainpur Branch of SBI at Muzaffarpur in Bihar submitted an application to the Assistant General Manager under the RTI Act stating that the SBI had declined his application concerning the duration of his suspension and the disposal of certain other matters. He stated that he had sought permission to approach the competent court for redressal. In that connection he had submitted three reminders dated 6th October, 2007, 20th November, 2007 and 8th November, 2007 and yet received no response. He accordingly sought the following information: (i) What is the actual position of the application dated 25th Januar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equired the Respondent to seek permission of the SBI to approach the competent Court. The Petitioner then again wrote to the Respondent on 24th September, 2008 drawing attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India (2008) 8 SCC 725: (AIR 2008 SC 2513) and sought to know the reasons why the information was declined. 9. The appeal filed by the Respondent against the denial of the information by the CPIO was dismissed by the Chief General Manager on 12th September, 2008. Thereafter, a second appeal was filed before the CIC. In issuing the direction in the impugned order as noticed hereinbefore, the CIC opined that the CPIO had not indicated the provision under the RTI Act under which information sought by the Respondent could be denied to him. 10. Before the CIC, the Respondent placed reliance on an order dated 8th December, 2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in State Bank of India v. Central Information Commissioner and Anr. (C.W.P. No. 20566 of 2008) by which a Division Bench of that Court negatived a similar plea by the SBI declining to provide information under the RTI Act to its employee who was Respondent No. 2 in that case. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... verse entries in an ACR to the concerned government servant was explained. It was pointed out that this was primarily to forewarn the government servant to mend his ways and to improve his performance. This was also the law as explained in State of U.P. v. Yamuna Shanker Misra (1997) 4 SCC 7: (AIR 1997 SC 3671). Therefore, the mere fact that the communication of an adverse entry in an ACR to the employee concerned might 'embarrass' the superior officer, can hardly be a ground to refuse the request by such employee that the adverse entry be communicated to him. Therefore, the approach by the CIC in the earlier orders which are relied upon by the SBI and in which similar requests, as made by the Respondent in this case, were declined do not appear to be correctly decided. 15. In any event, whatever may be the contradictions between the orders of the CIC, such orders do not bind this Court, which has to interpret the law keeping in view the present legal position and the judgments of the Supreme Court. Therefore, the first ground urged by learned Counsel for the Petitioner is rejected. 16. Mr. Kapur then submits that the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referring to an earlier judgment of the Larger Bench of the three judges in Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada (1992) 2 SCC 299: (AIR 1992 SC 1020)and, therefore, reliance placed by the CIC on the decision in Dev Dutt v. Union of India (AIR 2008 SC 2513)was erroneous. It is urged that on that basis a stay was granted by the Supreme Court of the judgment of the Punjab Haryana High Court. It is not clear, however, whether any final view has been taken or whether the disclosure of the marks obtained even by the applicant for information was exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) or (j) of the RTI Act. Consequently, this Court, therefore, proposes to decide the question whether the information sought by the Respondent is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act independent of the decision of the Punjab Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 20566 of 2008: (Reported in (2009) 2 Pun LR 417). 20. The decision in Baikuntha Nath Das was delivered in the context of a challenge to an order of 'compulsory retirement.' It was explained by the Supreme Court that an order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he purpose of the RTI Act, all information held by a public authority is accessible except to the extent such information is expressly exempted from disclosure as provided in the RTI Act itself. In other words, unless the public authority is able to demonstrate why the information held by it should be exempt from disclosure, it should normally be disclosed. The burden, therefore, is entirely on the public authority to show why the information sought from it should not be disclosed. 23. In the considered view of this Court, an employee of a public authority is entitled to know all the details concerning himself under the RTI Act, including the details concerning the denial of his promotion unless the public authority is able to show that such information is exempt from disclosure under Sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act. Sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act read as under: Section 8 - Exemption from disclosure of Information - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen: (e) information available to a person, in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent concerning himself, and which has been directed to be disclosed by the CIC, is not protected from exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. This is also the tenor of the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in Union of India v. Central Information Commission 165 (2009) DLT 559 where while interpreting Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act it was explained that where information can be furnished without compromising or affecting confidentiality and identity, it should be supplied and the bar under Section 8(1)(e) cannot be invoked. There is no question, therefore, of not providing the information concerning the Respondent to the Respondent himself. 26. The provision of Section 8(1)(j) is also not attracted. The disclosure to the Respondent of the information concerning himself can hardly be said to be an unwarranted invasion of his privacy. This is information about himself which he needs to know as it provides the reason why he was not considered for promotion. Therefore, the information directed to be disclosed by the SBI to the Respondent is only the disaggregated marks awarded to him in the promotion process and cannot be stated to be covered und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
