CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Room No. 06, Club Building, Old JNU Campus New Delhi ­110067. Tel: 011 – 26182597, 26182598

Appeal No.:­CIC/VS/A/2014/001930/BJ

Appellant : Mr. D S M Agastas Babu Plot No. 19, Abhiram Nagar, Urapakkam Kanchipuram Dist. ­603210.

Respondent 1 : CPIO & Sr. DPO DRM Office Personnel Branch, Southern Railway, Chennai Division Chennai ­ 600003.

Date of Hearing : 22.08.2016 Date of Decision : 22.08.2016

Date of filing of RTI application 17.11.2013

CPIO’s response 13.12.2013

Date of filing the First appeal 02.01.2014

First Appellate Authority’s response 31.01.2014

Date of filing second appeal before the Commission 06.05.2014

O R D E R

FACTS:

The appellant, by way of his RTI application dated 17.11.2013 sought information on 10 points regarding the copy of VRS application of Mr. R Pandurangan, SMR/GI; daily progress made on above mentioned VRS application; date on which 90 days completed from date of receipt of VRS application; total number of qualifying service served by Mr. R. Pandurangan as per service record, and matters related thereto.

The CPIO, vide its response dated 13.12.2013 stated that the information sought by the appellant was exempted from disclosure as per section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. It was further stated that no larger public interest would be served with the dissemination of

Page 1 of 3 information. Dissatisfied with the CPIOs reply, the appellant approached the FAA on 02.01.2014. The FAA vide its response dated 31.01.2014 concurred with the response of the CPIO.

HEARING: Facts emerging during the hearing: The following were present: Appellant: Mr. D. S. M. Agastas Babu (Station Master at Saidapet Railway Station) (M:7418104275) through VC­NIC Chennai; Respondent: Mr. D. W. Samuel, Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer­Chennai (M:9003161600) through VC­NIC Chennai;

The appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that the information had been denied to him by the respondents. The respondent stated that the appellant had sought information related to VRS application of a retired employee, Mr. R. Pandurangan which was denied being third party information. He further stated that the FAA vide its order dated 31/01/2014 had also upheld the decision of the CPIO. The appellant contested that RTI Act, 2005 mandates that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament shall be provided to the information seeker. The appellant further submitted that the information sought by him related to public documents and not private information of an employee. It was explained that disclosure of documents would allow him to contest the VRS provided to Mr. Pandurangan as being contrary to Chapter 18 of the Indian Railways Establishment Code.

The Commission referred to the judgement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012 (Arising out of CC 14781/2012), Decided On: 03.10.2012 in the matter of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. CIC and Ors. wherein it was observed:

“The Petitioner herein sought for copies of all memos, show cause notices and censure/punishment awarded to the third Respondent from his employer and also details viz. movable and immovable properties and also the details of his investments, lending and borrowing from Banks and other financial institutions. Further, he has also sought for the details of gifts stated to have accepted by the third Respondent, his family members and friends and relatives at the marriage of his son. The information mostly sought for finds a place in the income tax returns of the third Respondent. The question that has come up for

Page 2 of 3 consideration is whether the above­mentioned information sought for qualifies to be "personal information" as defined in Clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.

13. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the Petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third Respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in Clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the Petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.”

The Commission therefore observes that the information sought by the appellant related to personal information of a third party, the disclosure of which would cause unjust invasion on his privacy. Furthermore, no larger public interest was satisfactorily justified in the disclosure of information.

DECISION:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submission made by both the parties, no intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.

The appeal stands disposed accordingly.

(Bimal Julka) Information Commissioner

Authenticated True Copy:

(K.L.Das) Deputy Registrar

Page 3 of 3