RTI - Information on Disciplinary Proceedings (Against Central Excise Chief Commissioner) cannot be withheld by UPSC
APPELLANT, RK Jain wanted to inspect all the records relating to the proposed disciplinary action and/or imposition of penalty against Sri GS Narang, IRS of 1974 batch, with the UPSC. On being denied the information, the appellant approached the Central Information Commission.
The CIC ruled that: (2011-TIOL-01-CIC)
- Whatever records it (UPSC) 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.
- Information regarding the disciplinary matters against any government employee cannot be withheld by claiming it to be personal information.
The Commission directed the UPSC 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. After inspection, if the Appellant chooses to get the photocopies of some of those records, the CPIO shall provide the same free of cost.
UPSC was not prepared to part with the information and filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court.
The Delhi High Court recently pronounced its judgement upholding the order of the CIC.
The High Court observed,
Public interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or love of information or amusement; but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their rights or liabilities are affected. The expression "public interest" is not capable of a precise definition and has not a rigid meaning and is elastic and takes its colours from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with the time and the state of the society and its needs.
Take for instance, a case where a person is employed to work in an orphanage or a children's home having small children as inmates. The employer may or may not be a public authority under the Act. That person, i.e. the employee, has a background of child abuse, for which he has undergone psychiatric treatment in a government hospital. A querist could seek information regarding the medical and psychiatric treatment undergone by the person concerned from the government hospital where the person has undergone treatment, in larger public interest, even though the said information is not only personal, but private, vis-à-vis. the employee. The larger public interest in such a case would lay in protecting the children living in the orphanage/ children's home from possible child abuse.
The information sought by the Respondent relates to the proposed disciplinary action and/or imposition of penalty against Shri G.S. Narang, IRS, Central Excise and Customs Officer of 1974 Batch and the decision/recommendation of the Petitioner communicated to the concerned Ministry.
The information sought, in the present case, does not relate to the privacy of the charged officer. Disciplinary inquiry of the charged officer is with regard to the alleged irregularities committed by him while discharging public duties and public functions. The disclosure of such information cannot be regarded as invasion of his privacy.
The thrust of the legislation is to secure access to information under the control of public authorities in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, unless its disclosure is exempted under the Act. The access to information is considered vital to the functioning of a democracy, as it creates an informed citizenry. Transparency of information is considered vital to contain corruption and to hold Government and its instrumentalities accountable to the governed citizens of this country.
We bring you this judgement today. Please see 2012-TIOL-547-HC-DEL-CIC