AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 1478
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he information sought by the respondent, an appeal was preferred by him before the First Appellate Authority. Since the appeal filed by him was dismissed, the respondent approached the Central Information Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") by way of a second appeal. Vide impugned order dated 1.5.2013, the Commission rejected the contention of the petitioner - UPSC that the said information was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1) (e), (g) & (j) of the Right to Information Act (the Act) and directed the petitioner to disclose the file notings relating to the matter in hand to the respondent, with liberty to the petitioner -UPSC to obliterate the name and designation of the officer who made the said notings. Being aggrieved, the petitioner - UPSC is before this Court by way of this writ petition. 2. The respondent in W.P(C) No.2/2013 sought the information from the petitioner - UPSC with respect to the advice given by it in respect of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the said respondent. The said information having been denied by the CPIO as well as the First Appellate Authority, the respondent approached the Commission by way of a second a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (iii) the officers who record the notings on the file of UPSC are mainly drawn on deputation from various departments. If their identity is disclosed, they may be subjected to violence, intimidation and harassment by the persons against whom an adverse note is recorded and if the said officer of UPSC, on repatriation to his parent department, happens to be posted under the person against whom an adverse noting was recorded by him, such an officer may be targeted and harassed by the person against whom the note was recorded. Such an information, therefore, is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(g) of the Act and (iv) the notings recorded by UPSC officer on the file are only inputs given to the Commission to enable it to render an appropriate advice to the concerned department and are not binding upon the Commission. Therefore, such information is not really necessary for the employee who is facing departmental inquiry, since he is concerned only with the advice ultimately rendered by UPSC to his department and not that the noting meant for consideration of the Commission. 6. Section 8(1) (e)(g) and (j) of the Act reads as under: "Section 8(1)(e) in The Right To In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....good faith and fairness in dealing with the beneficiary or the things belonging to the beneficiary. If the beneficiary has entrusted anything to the fiduciary, to hold the thing in trust or to execute certain acts in regard to or with reference to the entrusted thing, the fiduciary has to act in confidence and expected not to disclose the thing or information to any third party. There are also certain relationships where both the parties have to act in a fiduciary capacity treating the other as the beneficiary. Examples of these are: a partner vis-'-vis another partner and an employer vis-'-vis employee. An employee who comes into possession of business or trade secrets or confidential information relating to the employer in the course of his employment, is expected to act as a fiduciary and cannot disclose it to others. Similarly, if on the request of the employer or official superior or the head of a department, an employee furnishes his personal details and information, to be retained in confidence, the employer, the official superior or departmental head is expected to hold such personal information in confidence as a fiduciary, to be made use of or disclosed only if the employ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ver the Disciplinary Authority takes such an advice into consideration while recording its findings in the matter. The concerned employee is entitled to supply of such advice to him, as a matter of right. There is no relationship of master and agent or a client and advocate between the UPSC and the department which seeks its advice. The information which the department provides to UPSC for the purpose of obtaining its advice normally would be the information pertaining to the employee against whom disciplinary proceedings have been initiated. Ordinarily such information would already be available with the concerned employee having been supplied to him while seeking his explanation, along with the charge-sheet or during the course of the inquiry. The UPSC, while giving its advice, cannot take into consideration any material, which is not available or is not to be made available to the concerned employee. Therefore, the notings of the officials of UPSC, would contain nothing, except the information which is already made available or is required to be made available to the concerned employee. Sometimes, such information can be a third party information, which qualifies to be personal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... convenient date and show the relevant record to him. He was also allowed to obtain photocopies of some of such record. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the Commission, UPSC approached this Court by way of the aforesaid petition and the contention raised by the UPSC was that the aforesaid information was exempt from disclosure under clause (e), (g) and (j) of Section 8(1) of the Act. It was held in para 50 of the judgment that the exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the Act would not apply since the information sought by the respondent was not held by or available with UPSC in its fiduciary capacity. The following view taken in para 51 and 55 of the judgment is relevant:- "51. In the present case it cannot be said that the opinion /advice tendered by the officers of the petitioner in respect of Sh. G.S. Narang was on account of their position as that of a "beneficiary" and that the position of the petitioner was that of a "trustee". The officers concerned who were involved in the opinion/advice making process acted in the discharge of their official/public duties. In any event, as aforesaid, the interest of such an officer can be effectively and sufficiently safegua....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e act or an instance of putting someone or something in danger; exposure to peril or such situation which would hurt the concept of life as understood in its wider sense [refer Black's Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition)]. Of course, physical safety would mean the likelihood of assault to physical existence of a person. If in the opinion of the concerned authority there is danger to life or possibility of danger to physical safety, the State Information Commission would be entitled to bring such case within the exemption of Section 8(1)(g) of the Act. The disclosure of information which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person is one category and identification of the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes is another category. The expression 'for law enforcement or security purposes' is to be read ejusdem generis only to the expression 'assistance given in confidence' and not to any other clause of the section. On the plain reading of Section 8(1)(g), it becomes clear that the said clause is complete in itself. It cannot be said to have any reference to the expression 'assistance given in confidence for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not with various notings which are recorded by the officer of the Commission, I find the same to be devoid of any merit. While seeking information under the Right to Information Act, the application is not required to disclose the purpose for which the information is sought nor is it necessary for him to satisfy the CPIO that the information sought by him was necessary for his personal purposes or for public purpose. Therefore, the question whether information seeker really needs the information is not relevant in the Scheme of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the following observations made by the Apex Court in Central Board of Secondary Education and Another versus Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. (supra): "37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing tran....