Information About Place Of Posting, Deputation, Working Hours, Leaves Availed Cannot Be Disclosed Under RTI Act: Punjab and Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the information with regard to the employee's place of posting, period of deputation, working hours, place of headquarter during deputation, any type of leaves availed along with the permission to leave the headquarter, copy of attendance register and movement register is personal in nature and cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act. 

The court passed the ruling in a case where the the State Information Commission, Haryana, in 2015 directed disclosure of such information, pertaining to a dental surgeon, to an applicant under the RTI Act.

The division bench of Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Manisha Batra, while setting aside the impugned orders of Single Judge and the Commission, observed that only information with regard to the date of appointment can be supplied under the RTI Act in this case.

"However, the information with regard to her place of posting, period of deputation, working hours, place of headquarter during deputation between 01.07.2014 to 31.12.2014, any type of leave availed during the period 01.07.2014 to 31.12.2014 along with permission to leave the headquarter, copy of her attendance register and movement register from 01.07.2014 to 31.12.2014, is relating to the information personal to her. This information is between the appellant and her employer and this would be subject to service rules and cannot be sought by respondent No.5 under the RTI Act, 2005," said the court.

The court directed the health department to only only provide information with regard to the date of appointment, and made it clear that rest of the information ordered to be supplied shall not be given.

It passed the order while considering an intra-court appeal against a Single Judge Bench Order dismissing the appeal filed against the Commission order. The appeal was filed by the dental surgeon whose information was directed to be disclosed by the Commission.

FACTS

The dental surgeon in January 2015 had filed a rape case in Karnal against a medical officer. The charges were framed against the accused in April 2015. She told the court that the accused. with the intention to harass, humiliate and tarnish her image, had been filing false complaints against her, including various applications under the Right to Information Act, seeking her personal information.

She further alleged that the father of the accused in February 2015 filed an application under the RTI Act "out of vengeance and personal vendetta", with the intention to pressurise her to either withdraw the FIR registered against his son or enter into a compromise in the criminal case.

While the health department denied the information on the ground that it was 'personal information', the Commission ordered it to supply some of the information to the father of the accused. A Single Bench in March 2019 dismissed the dental surgeon's petition against the order passed by the Commission.

Contentions Raised

The Counsel appearing for the dental surgeon, relying on Apex Court's decision in Girish Ramachandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner and others contended that with respect to the employee, information such as memos, show cause notice, order of censure/punishment qualify to be personal information as per Section 8 (1) (j) of the Right to Information Act 2005.

It was further submitted that the performance of an employee/officer is governed by the service rules, which fall under the expression "personal information" and disclosure of such information has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. The counsel also relied on the Delhi High Court Division Bench's order in Dr. R.S. Gupta vs. Government of NCTD and others to substantiate his argument. 

However, the counsel, representing the respondents who had sought the information, argued that some information has been rightly ordered to be provided and some has been rightly denied. "Hence, the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity," the counsel said.

To substantiate his argument, the counsel relied on the High Court decision in Vijay Dheer vs. State Information Commission, Punjab and others in which it was held that information regarding the joining of the petitioner in the department, including the appointment letter, copies of the certificates on the basis of which, he was appointed etc would not amount to personal information as the information was being sought for appointment on a public post and this information would not fall under the exception of Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act.

Findings

The division bench said the issue has been examined by Delhi High Court in Dr. R.S. Gupta vs. Government of NCTD and others and it has been held that the petitioner (therein) could take any information under the RTI Act with respect to his own appointment, which was personal to him, but he could not claim, as a matter of right, the information with respect to the attendance register of the staff of aided college or school.

Applying the ratio of the judgment to the case before it, the division bench said only information with regard to the date of appointment of the appellant can be supplied under the RTI Act, 2005 in this case.

"Even, copy of Form-16 and PAN card of the appellant cannot be given to respondent No.5 as such information is also personal to her and cannot be claimed by respondent no.5 under the RTI Act, 2005," the court added. 

Case Title: Dr XXX v. State Information Commissioner, Haryana and Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw(PH) 19

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment