Jump to content
News Ticker
  • NPAs under PM Modi's Mudra scheme jumped 126% in FY19
  • shows RTI
  • RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
  • 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
  • The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
  • Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
  • Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed
  • 0
Khan.Ismail

Is Service book treated as personal record behalf of supreme court order?

Question

Khan.Ismail

Dear friends,

I filed an rti on 14/03/19 before the cpio of railway through speed post and demanded one employees joining and service book details. I also quotes the cic file no and decision date and sentence releted to service book on my rti application, kindly check my attached rti application. Rti received by cpio on 18/03/19.

 

Cpio fails to supply information and i send first appeal to him by post on 23/04/19 releated to deemed denial. Appeal received on 29/03/19.

 

Now on 30/04/19 i received a letter sent by cpio regarding my rti application and he quoted a supreme court decision that service book is a public record. kindly check his attached reply letter.

 

This letter was typed by cpio on 24/04/19, and send to me by post on 26/04/19 which i received on 30/04/19.

 

Kindly pay your special attention on all dates. Thanks.RTI%20Cutting%20TI%20BSL.jpegIMG_20190430_202734.jpeg

 

Sent from my Redmi Note 3 using RTI INDIA mobile app

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
Khan.Ismail
Posted (edited)

.

RTI Cutting TI BSL.jpeg

IMG_20190430_202734.jpeg

Edited by Khan.Ismail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Khan.Ismail

Dear all,
Kindly help me.

Sent from my Redmi Note 3 using RTI INDIA mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Prasad GLN

First, go through such SC Judgment with the help of google.  You have referred old CIC order whereas CPIO has quoted latest SC Judgment.  Decide yourself.

As far as personal information is concerned, most of the experts in the forum are against advising further action if there is no larger public interest involved in the issue and there can be no logical conclusion on such personal matters finally.

As far as RTI is concerned the denial may be correct, but CPIO ought to have followed the stipulated time of 30 days.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Khan.Ismail

Dear prasad Sir,

I am a local reporter and through my sources i got some information that abov said employee has got his job with fake documents.

and i wanna exposed him thatsway i filed rti. so kindly help me.

 

supriem court decision link https://indiankanoon.org/doc/140349586/

kindly suggest for next step.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Khan.Ismail

Canara Bank vs C.S. Shyam . on 31 August, 2017

Author: A M Sapre

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.22 OF 2009 Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy Gen. Manager ….Appellant(s) VERSUS C.S. Shyam & Anr. …Respondent(s) JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 20.09.2007 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No. 2100 of 2007 whereby the High Court disposed of the writ appeal filed by the appellant herein and upheld the judgment passed by the Single Judge Signature Not Verified dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2017.08.31 16:58:31 IST Reason:

herein challenging the order of the Central Information Commission holding that the appellant must provide the information sought by respondent No.1 herein under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2) Few relevant facts need mention to appreciate the controversy involved in appeal.

3) The appellant herein is a nationalized Bank. It has a branch in District Malappuram in the State of Kerala. Respondent No. 1, at the relevant time, was working in the said Branch as a clerical staff.

4) On 01.08.2006, respondent No.1 submitted an application to the Public Information Officer of the appellant-Bank under Section 6 of the Act and sought information regarding transfer and posting of the entire clerical staff from 01.01.2002 to 31.07.2006 in all the branches of the appellant-Bank.

5) The information was sought on 15 parameters with regard to various aspects of transfers of clerical staff and staff of the Bank with regard to individual employees. This information was in relation to the personal details of individual employee such as the date of his/her joining, designation, details of promotion earned, date of his/her joining to the Branch where he/she is posted, the authorities who issued the transfer orders etc. etc.

6) On 29.08.2006, the Public Information Officer of the Bank expressed his inability to furnish the details sought by respondent No. 1 as, in his view, firstly, the information sought was protected from being disclosed under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act and secondly, it had no nexus with any public interest or activity.

7) Respondent No.1, felt aggrieved, filed appeal before the Chief Public Information Officer. By order dated 30.09.2006, the Chief Public Information Officer agreeing with the view taken by the Public Information Officer dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Public Information Officer.

😎 Felt aggrieved, respondent No.1 carried the matter in further appeal before the Central Information Commission. By order dated 26.02.2007, the appeal was allowed and accordingly directions were issued to the Bank to furnish the information sought by respondent No.1 in his application.

9) Against the said order, the appellant-Bank filed writ petition before the High Court. The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-Bank. Challenging the said order, the appellant-Bank filed writ appeal before the High Court.

10) By impugned order, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appellant's writ appeal and affirmed the order of the Central Information Commission, which has given rise to filing of this appeal.

11) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the application submitted by the 1st respondent under Section 6 of the Act.

12) In our considered opinion, the issue involved herein remains no more res integra and stands settled by two decisions of this Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794, it may not be necessary to re-examine any legal issue urged in this appeal.

13) In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande's case (supra), the petitioner therein (Girish) had sought some personal information of one employee working in Sub Regional Office (provident fund) Akola. All the authorities, exercising their respective powers under the Act, declined the prayer for furnishing the information sought by the petitioner. The High Court in writ petition filed by the petitioner upheld the orders. Aggrieved by all the order, he filed special leave to appeal in this Court. Their Lordships dismissed the appeal and upholding the orders passed by the High Court held as under:-

“12. 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 organisation 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 or 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.

13. 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.”

14) In our considered opinion, the aforementioned principle of law applies to the facts of this case on all force. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the information sought by respondent No.1 of individual employees working in the Bank was personal in nature; secondly, it was exempted from beingdisclosed under Section 8(j) of the Act and lastly, neither respondent No.1 disclosed any public interest much less larger public interest involved in seeking such information of the individual employee and nor any finding was recorded by the Central Information Commission and the High Court as to the involvement of any larger public interest in supplying such information to respondent No.1.

15) It is for these reasons, we are of the considered view that the application made by respondent No.1 under Section 6 of the Act was wholly misconceived and was, therefore, rightly rejected by the Public Information Officer and Chief Public Information Officer whereas wrongly allowed by the Central Information Commission and the High Court.

16) In this view of the matter, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and Central Information Commission and restore the orders passed by the Public Information Officer and the Chief Public Information Officer. As a result, the application submitted by respondent No.1 to the appellant-Bank dated 01.08.2006 (Annexure-P-1) stands rejected.

………...................................J. [R.K. AGRAWAL] …...……..................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi;

August 31, 2017

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Prasad GLN

Then the process must have been first to complain against that candidate to Railways, wait for a month, seek information on action taken against your complaint through RTI.  Then depending on that quoting all the efforts so far stated seeking information in the larger public interest through RTI for such qualification certificate. There your role as Reporter to expose the disqualification after all your efforts through proper channel reflects.

I am sorry as I do not know that qualification certificate copies are part of joining report and service book of Railways.  That is the reason I suggested Ms.Raveena Oberoi reference as she is the most competent person on this judgment as she is representative of CPIOs and authority on Railway matters.

The SC Judgment now quoted by Railways is based on the most controversial judgment that brought waves in RTI known as Girsh Deshpande case, and there are lakhs of denials stating this Girish Deshpande judgment of SC.

Establish larger public interest and then seek such information.   There were never exemptions in RTI Act for any larger public interest matters.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Shree Vathsan

I can see that SC judgement of 2009 (CIVIL APPEAL No.22 OF 2009) held that service record book between employer and employee is a private matter but CIC decisions CIC/AD/A/2012/00287 dated 13.05.2013  and CIC/AD/A/2012/00287 dated 03.02.2011 have ordered for service record book of a government employee sbe given. What is the present scenario in this case? I have sought the service record book of a police officer and I am filing second appeal Is there any other judgements or anything else that I need to know ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Prasad GLN

Unless there is larger public interest, it is difficult to get any information from Service Register.  SC has defined what is personal information like age, gender, health, marital status, religion, etc.   If PIO is considerate he can sever the information and provide, the information that is in the public domain.  It depends on the appellant and the reasons behind seeking such information (in fact reasons are not necessary).

We can not force PIO to provide information and it is natural for him to resist giving any information, and the only alternative is a decision by IC ultimately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy