Guidelines for payment of out of pocket expenses, copies of conveyance bills of a particular car number, and discretionary power for passing such bills were denied u/s 8(1)(j) - CIC: payment for overstaying in office made from public money; appeal allowed
11 Jan, 2014Guidelines for payment of out of pocket expenses, copies of conveyance bills of a particular car number, and discretionary power for passing such bills were denied u/s 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. - Appellant: there was an instance that bank had made a payment to a Chief Manager for out of pocket expenses - CIC: the payment for the claim in question has been made from public money and relates to payments for overstaying in office; appeal permitted
ORDER
Facts
1. The appellant filed an application dated 17.08.2012 under the RTI Act, seeking information regarding guidelines for payment of out of pocket expenses, copies of conveyance bills of a particular car number, and discretionary power for passing such bills. CPIO responded on 17.09.2012. Appellant filed first appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA) on 11.10.2012. FAA vide order dated 14.11.2012 denied the information stating that the information sought by the appellant was third party information. Appellant filed this present second appeal on 20.12.2012.
Hearing
2. Appellant and respondent participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
3. Appellant referred to his RTI application and stated that he was seeking information regarding guidelines for payment of out of pocket expenses, the discretionary power for passing such bills, and the facts about a certain claim mentioned in the RTI application.
4. Appellant stated he had filed a writ petition before the High Court against the bank for payment of allowances for overstay in the office by the award staff. Appellant stated the bank submitted a statement that there was no provision for payment of out of pocket expenses. Appellant stated that there was an instance that bank had made a payment to a Chief Manager for out of pocket expenses.
5. Appellant stated that in this regard he wanted to submit the claim application submitted by the Chief Manager before the High Court. Appellant stated that in this light he had sought copies of the claim application of the Chief Manager in the RTI application.
6. Respondent stated that they have provided the guidelines pertaining to the payment of out of payment allowances. Respondent stated that the appellant claimed that the bank had paid certain allowances to the officers but not to the award staff for overstay in the office.
7. Respondent stated that the information sought by the appellant was third party information and had not related to the appellant, therefore, the information could not be disclosed under section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act.
8. The payment for the claim in question has been made from public money by the bank. This relates to payments for overstaying in office, so the appellant wants to get the facts about the claim. This should be provided.
Decision
9. Respondent is directed to provide the information sought in para 3 above within 30 days of this order. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri S Vishwanathan Sankara Krupa v. State Bank of India in Decision No.CIC/VS/A/2013/000292/05651