CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

(Room No.315, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
Phone: 011- 26181927 | Fax: 011- 26185088

Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)

Central Information Commissioner

CIC/POSTS/A/2017/121371

Ajit Kumar Singh v. PIO, Department of Posts

RTI : 17.01.2017
FAO : 22.03.2017
Second Appeal : 27.03.2017
Hearing : 18.05.2017
Appellant : Present
Public authority : Absent
Decided on : 23.06.2017

SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE
FACTS:

1. The appellant filed RTI application seeking (1) certified copy of letter
addressed to the Circle Office, Delhi Circle in which my name was
included for seeking prior permission to be posted in the Divisional
Office (2) Certified copy of Circle office Dak receipt Register for the
months of Aug & Sep 2013 (3) Certified copy of Inspection Index
Register for the year 2013 exclusively VR 8 (4) Certified copy of
suggestions/comments passed by the Supervision Officer i.e. the then
ASP on the file No.VR-8/AD (V & 1)/2013 dated 16 Aug 2013. (5)
Certified copy of orders passed by the then Divisional Head i.e. SSPO's
New Delhi Central Division on the file No.VR-8/AD (V & 1)/2013 dated
16 Aug 2013. (6) Certified copy of the file notings by me on the file
No.VR-8/AD (V & 1)/2013 dated 16 Aug 2013.
2. The CPIO replied on 16.02.2017 that information seeker and the
provider being part of the same system, the employees are not
expected to question the decisions of the superior officers in the garb
of seeking information. Such employees have access to internal
mechanisms for redressal of their grievances. The CPIO’s response was
upheld by FAA vide order dated 22.03.2017.

CIC/POSTS/A/2017/121371 Page 1
DECISION:

3. The appellant is an ex-serviceman, who expressed his agony saying

there is no value for truth and reality as he has not received any
relevant information by the respondent authority. He quoted an order
[CIC/PB/A/2007/00373] which stated:

“...the file notings’ in the instant case contain information relating to

transfer/posting. The competent authority of the respondent may have
taken the decision keeping in view of the overall interests of the
respondent. It is therefore, not for any employee, how-so-ever he may be
affected, to know as to why or how the decision was taken by the
competent authority. The disclosure of such information for promotion of
his personal interest. Therefore, the CPIO is justified in denying the
information sought, u/s 8(1)(j) Act.

5. The information seeker, being an employee of the respondent, is a

part of the information provider. Under the RTI, the employees are not
expected to question the decisions of the superior officers in the garb of
seeking information. Such employees have access to internal mechanisms
for redressal of their grievances. Unfortunately, a large number of the
government employees are seeking information for promotion of their
personal interest. This is done on the pretext of serving the public cause,
without realizing the extent of distortions that it causes in use of public
resources due to putting up frivolous applications by them for self-interest.
This appeal is in no way exception.

4. The CPIO denied using the above language and logic saying
‘information seeker and the provider being part of the same system,
the employees are not expected to question the decisions of the
superior officers in the garb of seeking information. Such employees
have access to internal mechanisms for redressal of their grievances’.
5. The contention of CPIO is not acceptable. The RTI is equally given to
all the citizens including the employees of the state. They are citizens
of India. They were selected in those jobs because they are basically
citizens of India. Being an employer of state does not deprive them of
their right to information or any other Constitutional Rights. One
cannot say that an employee will get all his constitutional rights but

CIC/POSTS/A/2017/121371 Page 2
 not the Right to Information, which is part and parcel of Freedom of
Speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of
India as upheld by Supreme Court in number of cases. Their rights
under RTI have the same restrictions as that of other citizen’s. They
have neither greater nor lesser rights under this Act. Contending that
(a) every employee being part of state is part of information provider,
(b) employee has no right to know why or how the public authority has
taken a particular decision, and (c) that seeking promotion is self-
interest and not public interest, is absolutely illogical and illegal. Every
employer has a right to promotion subject to merit and legal eligibility
on par with others situated in similar position. The CPIO’s statement
that “employees are not expected to question the decisions of the
superior officers in the garb of seeking information” though supported
by an order of CIC, is not in tune with letter and spirit of Right to
Information Act and Article 19(1)(A) of the Constitution of India.
6. From his application under RTI, it appears that he was denied posting
in Divisional Office, though he was considered initially. The posting or
transfer should be based on reason and reasonable policy. The DoPT
issued an office memorandum dated June 30, 2015 making it
mandatory for the public authorities to disclose entire information on
their own on transfers, promotions and recruitment. The denial in this
case by CPIO is against this order and the RTI Act.
7. The CPIO Mr Umesh, being a senior officer or boss, has a duty to
address the grievances of his own employees and honour their right to
information also. Instead, the CPIO declared that employees have no
right and they should not question the boss. It is highly objectionable
declaration.
8. The Commission directs Shri B.S. Umesh, CPIO/Sr. Supdt of Post
Offices, New Delhi Central Division to furnish certified copies of the file
notings to the appellant along with other information sought but not
given, free of cost, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this
Order.
9. The Commission also directs Shri B.S. Umesh, CPIO and Senior
Superintendent of Post Offices, New Delhi Central Division to explain
why maximum penalty should not be imposed for denying the

CIC/POSTS/A/2017/121371 Page 3
 information to the appellant, within 21 days from the date of receipt of
this order.

SD/-

(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)

Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy

(Dinesh Kumar)
Deputy Registrar

Copy of decision given to the parties free of cost.

Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO under RTI,
Department of Posts,
O/o Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices,
New Delhi Central Division,
Meghdoot Bhawan, Link Road,
New Delhi-110001.

2. Shri Ajit Kumar Singh,

Postal Asstt. Indraprastha,
Head PO, New Delhi-110002.

CIC/POSTS/A/2017/121371 Page 4