ORDER : 1. Petitioner who is working as Teacher Grade-III with the respondents has assailed by way of this writ petition the departmental action taken against her whereby punishment of stopping one grade increment with cumulative effect has been passed vide order dated 07.08.2011 and the order dated 16.07.2014 whereby her appeal has also been rejected. 2. The facts which need to be noted are that the petitioner was asked by the respondent-District Education Officer to provide the personal information relating to her properties as well as details relating to her husband, date of marriage, number of children. The said information was asked on the ground that one Anil Kumar Sharma had moved an application under the RTI Act 2005 for seeking information about the petitioner. 3. The petitioner refused to divulge her personal information as it was informed that the concerned applicant who had moved RTI application, was having litigation with her and criminal cases had been registered in between them. A notice was also sent by her counsel to the District Education Officer not to demand such information from her. Such denial resulted in the respondent initiating departmental action against the petitioner by initiating charge sheet under Section 17 of the CCA Rules 1958 by the then District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Tonk on 20.08.2010. Allegation levelled was that she had refused to provide information and thus violated the Right to Information Act and had thus disobeyed orders of the Higher Authorities. On basis thereto, petitioner was punished stopping of one grade increment without cumulative effect by the District Education Officer vide order dated 07.08.2011. An appeal was preferred before the Director who rejected the same vide order dated 16.07.2014. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the Right to Information Act 2005 in terms of Section 8, personal information cannot be disclosed to any other person to be divulged and no other person can cause interference in privacy and therefore the petitioner had correctly refused to divulge her personal information and her denial cannot be said to be in any manner a misconduct or act of disobedience. It is submitted that while his superior officers have an authority but the authority has to be exercised in accordance with law and unauthorized information cannot be demanded; the very departmental enquiry proceedings initiated therefore were in contravention of the Conduct Rules of 1971 and in violation of the RTI Act 2005. The District Education Officer wrongfully action of punishing the petitioner by stopping of one grade increment without cumulative effect was totally unwarranted. It is also submitted that the Appellate Authority has failed to examine the matter in its prospective and cursorily rejected the appeal. Learned counsel relies on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in (2013) 1 SCC 212 Girish Ramchandra Deshpandey Versus Central Information Commissioner & Others. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that as there was an order passed by the District Education Officer demanding certain information, the petitioner who is an employee was required to follow the command and it is a case of disobedience. 6. I have heard learned counsel, find that the District Education Officer has demanded the information from the petitioner contrary to the provisions under the RTI Act, Section 8 of the said Act reads as under:- 8. 6. I have heard learned counsel, find that the District Education Officer has demanded the information from the petitioner contrary to the provisions under the RTI Act, Section 8 of the said Act reads as under:- 8. Exemption from disclosure of information:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen- (a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; (b) information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court; (c) information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature; (d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; (e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; (f) information received in confidence from foreign government; (g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; (h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; (i) cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed; (j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has not relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. (2) Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with subsection (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. (3) Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act.” In terms thereof personal information demanded by any other person could not have been asked for and it was the duty of the concerned Senior Deputy District Education Officer to have refused and rejected the application of Anil Kumar Sharma instead the departmental action has been taken initiating proceedings under Rule 17 for disobedience. The Apex Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpandey (supra) has held as under:- “11. The Petitioner herein sought for copies of all memos, show cause notices and censure/punishment awarded to the third Respondent from his employer and also details viz. movable and immovable properties and also the details of his investments, lending and borrowing from Banks and other financial institutions. Further, he has also sought for the details of gifts stated to have accepted by the third Respondent, his family members and friends and relatives at the marriage of his son. The information mostly sought for finds a place in the income tax returns of the third Respondent. The question that has come up for consideration is whether the abovementioned information sought for qualifies to be “personal information” as defined in Clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. 12. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the Petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third Respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in Clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. 12. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the Petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third Respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in Clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression “personal information”, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the Petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right. 13. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are “personal information” which stand exempted from disclosure under Clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.” 7. In view thereof, the action of the petitioner cannot be said to fall within the meaning of misconduct and there is no violation of Conduct Rules of 1971. Accordingly, the departmental proceedings initiated and action taken thereto stand vitiated in law. The Appellate Authority ought to have examined the appeal in view of the judgments as well as in light of the provision contained under the Act of 2005. It is noticed by this Court time and again that the Appellate Authorities fail to exercise their duty as caste upon them within a meaning of Section 23 of the CCA Rules of 1958. It is binding upon the Director i.e. Appellate Authority to deal with each submission which has been raised in appeal and pass an order giving his own reasons and findings. Shirking away from the said duty of passing a detailed order on appeal results in unnecessary litigation before this Court. 8. It is binding upon the Director i.e. Appellate Authority to deal with each submission which has been raised in appeal and pass an order giving his own reasons and findings. Shirking away from the said duty of passing a detailed order on appeal results in unnecessary litigation before this Court. 8. In view of the findings arrived at in the orders dated 07.08.2011 and 16.07.2014 are quashed and set-aside. The petitioner would be entitled to reimbursement of one grade increment alongwith interest @ 9% per annum. Re-fixation accordingly shall be made by the respondents, arrears thereto shall be released accordingly. Cost of this writ petition is fixed @ Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the petitioner and shall be equally reimbursed by the then Director and the District Education Officer to the department who have passed the impugned orders. 9. The writ petition is allowed accordingly.