Denial of promotion - Different action for the same delinquency
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank seeking copy of a certain departmental inquiry report. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information by claiming exemption 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. of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC) the appellant stated that he was seeking details of the departmental proceedings and the process pertaining to the award of punishment to him because he had been discriminated against. The appellant claimed that for the same delinquency while one of his colleagues was let off with lesser consequences, he had been made to suffer much more. The appellant added that the respondent has not given him the promotion due to him though his colleague had been promoted. The respondent submitted that a wide set of information that had been provided to the appellant but information about the details of punishment and the departmental action taken against the employee who got the promotion had not been provided. The respondent also stated that the appellant had also approached the Scheduled Tribes Commission in the matter and in the course of the proceedings further information was provided to the appellant.
View of CIC
The Commission observed that the appellant wanted to find out the reasons why one person in the establishment had been given promotion while he himself had not been promoted. It was brought to the notice of the Commission during the course of hearing that the two staff members, one of whom is the appellant, were both implicated in the same matter from which resulted the consequences affecting both, but the appellant was left with a grievance. The Commission directed the respondent to furnish the information to the appellant as sought in his RTI application.
Citation: Mr. Jamadar Singh v. Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank in Decision No.CIC/SM/A/2012/000464/VS/02565
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2013/CIC/1167
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission