Appellant sought the reason why the bank changed its mind and ultimately sanctioned the prosecution - information pertaining to correspondence regarding prosecution was denied u/s 8(1)(h) after the advice of CBI - CIC: denial upheld
11 Nov, 2013Appellant sought the reason why the bank changed its mind and ultimately sanctioned the prosecution - a copy of the letter which the bank had written to the CBI refusing the sanction was sought - information pertaining to correspondence regarding prosecution was denied u/s 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; after the advice of CBI - CIC: when the cause of suspension was asked, the respondent stated that the appellant was suspended on the charge of some fraud and reinstated and on the direction of the CBI, he was again suspended; denial upheld
ORDER
RTI application:
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 02.05.2012 seeking information pertaining to correspondence regarding prosecution.
2. The PIO responded on 13.06.2012 and informed the appellant that they had sought the advice of CBI for providing the information to the appellant. The appellant filed a first appeal on 15.06.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 11.07.2012 and informed the appellant that the matter is subjudice hence information could not be provided under section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act. The appellant filed a second appeal on 16.10.2012 with the Commission.
Hearing:
3. The appellant participated in the hearing personally. The respondent participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 02.05.2012 and stated that he has sought information on two points which relate to the background in which the bank has proceeded against him in administrative action which clearly adhoc according to the appellant.
5. The appellant stated that some time ago there were irregularities detected in the bank which had been enquired into, and on the basis of enquiry the bank had found minor procedural lapses leading to some punishment against the appellant. After some time the bank, on the basis of a letter sent by the CBI, had initiated action for prosecution against the appellant. The appellant said that after the CBI wrote to the bank, the bank had refused to change its earlier stand but after persistence from the CBI, the bank changed its stand and allowed the prosecution.
6. In this light, the appellant stated that he wants the following information:
(a) the ground on which the bank had earlier refused to sanction the prosecution that had been requested by the CBI; in this connection, the appellant said that he wanted to have a copy of the letter which the bank had written to the CBI refusing the sanction; and
(b) the reason why the bank changed its mind and ultimately sanctioned the prosecution.
7. The respondent stated that the bank had written a letter to the CBI on 06.06.2012, whether the information can be supplied to the appellant. The respondent stated that the CBI responded on 05.07.2012 stating that the information should not be supplied to the appellant as the matter is pending in the Patiala House Court before the Special Judge of the CBI and this is a matter in which section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act would apply.
8. During the hearing, when this cause of suspension was asked, the respondent stated that the appellant was suspended on the charge of some fraud and reinstated. The respondent reiterated that on the direction of the CBI he was again suspended.
9. The appellant stated that after his suspension he was not reinstated.
10. What emerged from the hearing was that both the CPIO and the FAA in their responses stated that the information cannot be supplied to the appellant as the matter is subjudice and exempt from the disclosure clauses of the RTI Act.
Decision:
11. The approach of the respondent is upheld. Commission's intervention is not required in the matter. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri R.K. Sharma v. State Bank of Patiala in Decision No.CIC/VS/A/2012/001631/05086