Copies of service related documents not disclosed.

Appellant had sought information regarding service matters of one Krishan Chandra. It was denied by the Respondents under S.8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Appellant questioned the denial and stated that the information sought cannot be regarded as personal information, which has no relationship to any public activity. He further submitted that similar information concerning the same officer was provided by the Respondents to another RTI applicant.

CIC observed that one of the pieces of information provided was regarding the property return of Krishan Chandra for a particular year.
Appellant contended that he is a farmer and believes that Krishan Chandra is not fit for the post which he is holding.
CIC held that the information sought concerned certified copies of the application form of Krishan Chandra for his appointment, the attestation form filled up by him, his police verification report, his educational certificates, his caste certificate and copies of the experience certificates submitted by him; that all the above information is information of a personal nature, covered by S.8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and cannot be disclosed in the absence of a finding of larger public interest.

In this regard the CIC also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors. [SLP (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012], wherein the Apex Court has held as follows: “…..if on the request of the employer or official superior or the head of a department, an employee furnishes his personal details and information, to be retained in confidence, the employer, the official superior or departmental head is expected to hold such personal information in confidence as a fiduciary, to be made use of or disclosed only if the employee’s conduct or acts are found to be prejudicial to the employer.”
CIC further held that the Appellant has not established any larger public for disclosure of the information sought by him and his unsubstantiated allegation regarding the officer concerned not being qualified for his post, cannot become the ground of larger

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *