RTI Corner

The appellant stated that the information about the assets of the public servant cannot be withheld on account of fiduciary relationship, since as per Section 44 of ‘The Lokpal and Lokyukta Act, 2013’, it is mandatory on the part of every public servant to make a declaration as to his assets and liabilities. Moreover, the information, which is required to be disclosed under any enactment and/or any provision of law, cannot be held to be given under fiduciary relationship. The CIC held that the details about a public servant's assets were required by law to be submitted to the government, and as the public servant would own these by means of his earning as a public servant, it cannot be held that the details of his assets are private or that their disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Hence, the information which has been shared with the respondent organisation about the assets of Mr Birendra Jaiswal can be shared with the appellant.
Comments
The stand of the Information Commission has been varying on the issue of disclosure of the assets of a public servant. This order appears to be contrary to Supreme Court decision in Girish Deshpande case.
Citation: Kamal Kishore Arora v. Ministry of Commerce and Industry Intellectual Property Office, Delhi and Trade Marks Registry Mumbai and Delhi in Decision no.: CIC/MOCMI/A/2018/160203/03169, Date of Decision: 18/03/2020
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant was compulsorily retired under FR 56(j) vide Order No. A-47012/2/2016-HRD-I dated 10.05.2018 and sought the copies of complete notes and correspondent portions of the relevant file/files in regard to decision taken for his retirement. The PIO refused to provide the requisite information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act alleging that since the total information contains a combined report of the Committee regarding all the persons who had been considered and recommended for Compulsory Retirement under Rule 56(j) of CCS (Pension), Rules, 1972. The Appellant submitted that the PIO could have provided the information after applying the doctrine of severability as embodied in Section 10(1) of the RTI Act. He claimed that the information would enable him to represent his case before the Representation Committee or to seek redressal before the Court of Law against the decision to retire him under FR 56(j). The CIC perused the relevant files during the hearing. While the CIC was in agreement with the contentions of the PIO that every single note-sheet is related to all the four employees who were subjected to compulsory retirement, however, the CIC observed that the portion of the notesheet in which a final decision was taken can be supplied to the appellant, since he himself was one of the employees who were subjected to Compulsory Retirement as he was retired on the basis of a report of the Review Committee. With regard to the correspondence portion of the files, the CIC held that the material on the basis of which a decision was taken to compulsory retire the appellant can be supplied to him as such material/documents would be in relation to an individual employee only. The CIC instructed the PIO to obliterate the name/s of Review Committee members and/or details of other employees who have similarly been retired under FR 56(j) of CCS (Pension), Rules, 1972 and Rule 48 of the Rules and supply the portion relevant and referring to the appellant.
Comments
Compulsory retirement under FR 56(j) has often been challenged before the Courts. Even though it is prerogative of the competent authority to decide about the compulsory retirement of an employee in public interest, the employee is well within his/her rights to obtain details/factual background which led to such an action. Such information cannot be denied to him, in terms of principle of natural justice.
Citation: R C Kalra v. Dy. Director General of Foreign Trade/CPIO(HRD - I), Ministry of Commerce & Industry in Decision no.: CIC/MOCMI/A/2018/155663/03171, Date of Decision: 31/03/2020
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com