Chronological correspondence between Zonal office and CO/ CVC regarding conduct of inquiry and final punishment denied u/s 8(1)(h) and 8(1)(j) - Internal Advisory Committee report of the bank denied claiming it is not relevant - CIC: denial upheld
15 Sep, 2013O R D E R
RTI application
1. The appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO on 13.3.2012 seeking chronological correspondence between Zonal office and CO/ CVC regarding conduct of inquiry and final punishment. The CPIO denied the information on 18.4.2012 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; and section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no 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. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no 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. of the RTI Act.
2. Not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 27.4.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA upheld the reply of CPIO on 19.5.2012. The appellant approached the Commission on 4.9.2012 in second appeal.
Hearing
3. The appellant and the respondent both participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 13.3.2012 and stated that the fact he sought to unearth was pertinent to the departmental proceedings against him. The appellant stated that the problems of the bank are such that he has fallen victim to it and the true facts will be reflected in the Internal Advisory Committee (IAC) report which he has sought in his RTI application.
5. The respondent stated that the information that has been sought has been provided to the extent that was possible under the RTI Act taking into account the exemption from disclosure clauses. The respondent stated that there were 4 points on which the information was sought by the appellant. Out of these, one pertained to the legal opinion that has been provided. Another information was about the action taken by the respondent in a certain time frame, which has also been provided, according to the respondent.
6. The respondent stated that the information that has a bearing on the judicial process could not be provided under section 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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; and 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; of the RTI Act. The respondent further stated that one information that the appellant was seeking was in the nature of personal particulars about a senior officer, that also had to be denied under section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no 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. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no 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. of the RTI Act.
7. The appellant stated that his focus in today’s hearing is on getting a copy of the IAC report.
8. The respondent stated that the reason why the appellant is insisting on the IAC report cannot be understood. The respondent explained that the appellant has already been chargesheeted after the bank has considered the IAC report. It was explained that this report goes into various questions about whether the matter is of relevance for a vigilance case or is it a matter closer to a nonvigilance case. The respondent said that now that the matter has already become a vigilance case and gone into an advanced stage of judicial process, the relevance of the IAC report is not there and hence it was denied. The respondent said that, in any case, the information could not be given under the exemption from disclosure clauses of the RTI Act.
9. The approach of the respondent in the matter has been in conformity with the provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision
10. The decision of the FAA is upheld. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to both the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commission
Citation: Capt R.S. Sahoo v. Central Bank of India in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001266/04372