1. The petitioners challenge Ext.P4 order dated 10.03.2023, passed by the State Information Commission, whereby the Commission directed the re-examination of the Right to Information (hereinafter referred to as the ‘RTI application’) application submitted by the 1st respondent and ordered the disclosure of the information sought, free of cost, under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the RTI Act’).

2. It is submitted that the 1st respondent, while working as Under Secretary in the Department Test Wing of the Commission, filed Ext. P1 RTI application on 24.12.2018 seeking information regarding various aspects of the Public Service Commission, which contained 16 questions with sub- questions. To the requisition, the Information Officer made him available admissible information vide Ext. P2 reply dated 23.01.2019. The 1st petitioner also addressed a letter on 30.01.2019 to the 1st respondent informing that copies of 27 pages in relation to the questions 3,4,6, and 7 should be made available to him on payment of Rs.54/-, and the same was given to him on 05.03.2019. Further, an appeal was preferred before the appellate authority of the Commission, and the appellate authority considered the appeal and passed Ext.P3 order dated 08.03.2019. Further, aggrieved by the said order, the 1st respondent approached the 2nd respondent, and the 2nd respondent passed Ext. P4 order dated 10.03.2023 directing to re-examine the application and give a clear and accurate answer, completely free of cost.

3. The questions for which the information was not furnished are as follows:

                  

                  

                  

4. It is contended that the information sought constitutes personal information within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, having no nexus with any public activity or public interest, and that disclosure of such confidential records relating to disciplinary proceedings would result in an unwarranted invasion of privacy and impair the fiduciary relationship between the Commission and its officers. The petitioners assert that such requests do not fall within the purview of “information” under the RTI Act, which is intended to relate to the general functioning of the public authority and, as defined under Section 2(j), does not extend to disclosure of personal or private matters.

5. The petitioners place reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay [(2011) 8 SCC 497], Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission [(2013) 1 SCC 212] and Canara Bank v. C.S. Shyam [(2018) 11 SCC 426], to contend that the right to information, though a valuable statutory right, is not absolute and is subject to statutory exemptions intended to protect confidentiality, fiduciary relationships and administrative efficiency. It is contended that service records, disciplinary proceedings, complaints, inquiry reports, and personal details of employees constitute personal information exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, unless a larger public interest is clearly established. The petitioners also rely on the decision of the Central Information Commission in Manoj Arya v. Central Public Information Officer, Cabinet Secretariat (File No.CIC/SM/A/2013/000058 dated 26.06.2013), to contend that inquiry reports and complaint-related records concerning third parties are personal in nature and cannot be disclosed in the absence of an overriding public interest.

6. It is also submitted that the Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005, mandates the procedure in deciding an appeal, the commission may hear oral or written evidence on oath or on affidavit from concerned or interested person; peruse or inspect documents, public records or copies thereof; inquire through authorised officer further details or facts; hear Central Public Information Officer, Central Assistant Public Information Officer, such Senior Officer who decided the first appeal, such person against whom the complaint lies or the third party. The petitioners contend that the impugned appellate order fails to satisfy the mandate of Section 19 of the RTI Act and the prescribed appellate procedure, since it neither records reasons nor arrives at any finding regarding illegality or non-furnishing of information by the Public Information Officer, and further that the appellate authority, instead of adjudicating the appeal on merits by passing a reasoned order in open proceedings as required under the Act, issued a direction wholly dehors the statutory procedure.

7. In the present case, however, the impugned order merely issues a direction to re-examine the matter and furnish the information free of cost, without recording any finding as to illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority. The grievance before the Commission was confined to the remittance of Rs.54/- towards copying charges, yet the Commission travelled beyond the scope of the appeal and directed a re-examination of the entire RTI application, which is ex facie unsustainable and illegal.

8. Heard Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Sri.M.Ajay, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State Information Commission.

9. On an analysis of the materials on record and the rival contentions, it is evident that the RTI application filed by the 1st respondent was directed against the internal functioning of the Kerala Public Service Commission and predominantly sought disclosure of records relating to disciplinary and vigilance proceedings, including names and designations of inquiry officers, statements of employees, attendance registers, internal note files and records of third-party officers. The Public Information Officer, after due consideration, furnished all admissible information and declined disclosure of the remaining information by invoking Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, holding that the information sought was personal, confidential, related to service matters and third-party employees, and that no larger public interest was demonstrated. The said view was independently affirmed by the statutory Appellate Authority.

10. The State Information Commission, however, while entertaining the second appeal, did not record any finding as to how the orders of the Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority suffered from illegality or irregularity, nor did it identify any specific information which was wrongly withheld. Instead, the Commission issued a blanket direction to re-examine the entire RTI application and furnish information free of cost. Such an approach is clearly contrary to the scheme of Section 19 of the RTI Act and the prescribed appeal procedure, which obligates the appellate authority to adjudicate the appeal on merits, record reasons, and arrive at definite findings. The impugned order thus suffers from non- application of mind and procedural infirmity.

11. Further, the nature of information sought squarely falls within the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (supra), Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (supra) and C.S. Shyam (supra) makes it clear that service records, disciplinary proceedings, inquiry reports, names of officers involved in such proceedings and statements recorded therein constitute personal information, the disclosure of which has no nexus with any public activity or public interest, and disclosure would result in unwarranted invasion of privacy unless a larger public interest is established. No such larger public interest has been pleaded in this case.

12. It is also relevant to note that notice was issued by this Court to the 1st respondent as per the order dated 9.11.2023. Despite service of notice, the complainant has chosen not to enter an appearance or contest the writ petition. The pleadings and records placed by the petitioners, therefore, remain uncontroverted. In the absence of any justification forthcoming from the complainant, and in view of the settled legal position governing disclosure of personal and confidential service-related information, the impugned order of the State Information Commission, which is completely bereft of any reason, cannot be sustained.

                  Therefore, Ext.P4 order dated 10.03.2023 passed by the State Information Commission is quashed, and the writ petition is allowed.