Personal information of govt employee can not be disclosed under right to infomation Act

During the hearing the Respondent informed the Commission that  information cannot be provided
u/s8(1)(h)  to the Appellant since the DAR proceedings against Mr. Chakraborty are  ongoing. Be that
as it may, the Commission  while relying upon the decision pronounced by the Supreme Court of
India in SLP (Civil) no.27734 of 2012 (@CC 154781/2012) holds that the information sought by theAppellant are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI
Act and hence is not disclosable.


               In the Central Information Commission 
at
New Delhi
                                                                               File No: CIC/AD/A/2012/002470
Heard through Video Conference
Date  of Hearing     :   February 22, 2013.
Date of Decision     :   February 22, 2013.
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Subhasish  Chakraborty
S/o  Late Brajendralal Chakraborty
244, Rahara Uttarpara
PO Rahara, Distt  24 Pgs,
Kolkata.
Applicant  was  present.
Respondent(s)
Eastern Railway
O/o  the Dy.CVO (E) & PIO
Eastern Railway
Kolkta.
Representative  :   Shri Abhay Sharma, Dy.CVO/PIO
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________In the Central Information Commission 
at
New Delhi
                                                                     File No: CIC/AD/A/2012/002470
ORDER
Background.
1. The   RTI Application dated   18.6.11   was filed by the Applicant with the PIO,   Eastern Railway,
Kolkata  seeking information against 10 points with respect to an enquiry that was conducted against
one Mr. S Chakraborty, Inspector (RPF) E.Railway including names of officials who had conducted
the enquiry.  The PIO replied on  7.7.11 denying the information against  points 1 and 2  u/s 8(1)(g) &
8(1)(h)  and points 3 to 10 u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act since the enquiry was still going on .  Being
dissatisfied with this reply the Applicant filed his first appeal on  18.9.11 seeking the information once
again.  The Appellate Authority disposed off the appeal on 16.1.12  directing the Dy.CVO, E.Railway
to provide a detailed  response to the Appellant within one month.  Thereafter the  Appellant filed his
second appeal before the Commission.
Decision 
2. During the hearing the Respondent informed the Commission that  information cannot be provided
u/s8(1)(h)  to the Appellant since the DAR proceedings against Mr. Chakraborty are  ongoing. Be that
as it may, the Commission  while relying upon the decision pronounced by the Supreme Court of
India in SLP (Civil) no.27734 of 2012 (@CC 154781/2012) holds that the information sought by theAppellant are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI
Act and hence is not disclosable.
3.     The appeal is rejected and the case directed to be closed.

REad More here;                                           

             SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

          Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27734          of 2012
                              (@ CC 14781/2012)



Girish Ramchandra Deshpande                  .. Petitioner
                                   Versus
Cen. Information Commr. & Ors.                     .. Respondents

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.

14.   The details disclosed by a  person  in  his  income  tax  returns  are
"personal information" which stand exempted  from  disclosure  under  clause
(j) of Section 8(1)  of  the  RTI  Act,  unless  involves  a  larger  public
interest and the Central Public Information  Officer  or  the  State  Public
Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the  larger
public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.

15.   The petitioner in the instant case has not made  a  bona  fide  public
interest in seeking information, the disclosure of  such  information  would
cause unwarranted invasion  of  privacy  of  the  individual  under  Section
8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

16.   We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has  not  succeeded
in establishing that the information sought for is  for  the  larger  public
interest.  That being the fact,  we  are  not  inclined  to  entertain  this
special leave petition.  Hence, the same is dismissed