Copy of a complaint of harassment in the work place made by a lady assistant against an officer denied u/s 8(1)(j) - Appellant: seeking this information to unearth the truth as a social worker - lady objected to notice u/s 11(1) - CIC: denial upheld
5 Sep, 2013RTI application
1. The appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO on 10.5.2012 seeking information about a harassment complaint made by a lady employee against a bank officer. In all, the information was sought on 4 points. The PIO denied the information on 31.5.2012 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 2005.
2. Not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 20.6.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA, after a personal hearing on 21.7.2012, upheld the reply of PIO on 26.7.2012. The appellant approached the Commission on 21.8.2012 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 10.5.2012 and stated that he was seeking a copy of a complaint of harassment in the work place that had been made by a lady assistant against an officer. The appellant stated that the respondent is denying him the information by taking the cover of 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 as personal information. The appellant also stated that under pressure of the respondent, the complainant had to take back her complaint. The appellant said that he is seeking this information to unearth the truth as a social worker particularly taking into account that the lady belongs to the weaker sections of society.
5. The respondent stated that the complaint of misbehavior by an officer was taken seriously by the bank. The respondent stated that the matter was enquired into by the management and action taken. The respondent informed that the lady employee was then transferred to another place of her choice.
6. The appellant stated that the fact is that the officer who had misbehaved, was given a posting close to his hometown.
7. The respondent stated that in so far as the RTI application is concerned, the respondent has acted in accordance with the RTI Act. The respondent stated that the CPIO took action under section 11(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: of the Act and asked the lady employee on 14.5.2012 whether she had any objection to the giving of her letter of complaint to the appellant, as the information being sought was clearly a third party information. The respondent stated that a response was received from the lady employee on 28.6.2012 in which the lady stated that she did not want her letter of complaint to be given to any other person.
8. The respondent further stated that after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant, the FAA upheld the action taken in the matter by the CPIO.
9. The respondent has taken action in conformity with the provisions of the RTI Act while also taking the step of getting the lady assistant’s response on section 11(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: 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: Shri Roshan Lal Chauhan v. Himachal Gramin Bank in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001093/04028