Information concerning the service matters of a bank employee was sought raising certain doubts regarding her qualification, age & appointment - CIC: ACR grading & marks contained in the DPC proceedings can be disclosed only to the concerned employee
4 Aug, 2016Hearing on 19.2.2016
This matter, pertaining to an RTI application filed by the Appellant, seeking information on eight points regarding the service matters of a lady employee, came up today. The Appellant was present at the NIC Studio, Nagercoil. The Registry has informed us that because of a public holiday in Mumbai, the Respondents have not been able to appear for the hearing. In view of the foregoing, the Registry is directed to reschedule this matter at the earliest possible and issue fresh notices to both the parties.
Hearing on 18.4.2016
2. The matter came up again today. The Appellant was present at the NIC Studio, Nagercoil. On behalf of the Respondents, Shri Sanjay Kumar, Chief Manager (Law) was present at the NIC Studio, Mumbai. The Appellant stated that he had sought information concerning the service matters of a lady employee of the bank as there are certain doubts regarding her qualification, age and appointment as an Assistant in the Respondent Bank. He alleged that the information was wilfully denied by the CPIO. He further submitted that what he had asked for was not information concerning the personal matters of the employee concerned, but her service matters, which could not have been denied to him. He stated that he has had to pursue the matter for nearly two years, including at the level of the High Court and prayed that, besides provision of the information sought by him, he should also be awarded suitable compensation and penalty should be imposed on the CPIO. The Respondents stated that the application, which was filed to their Head Office in Mumbai, was forwarded by them to the Regional Office at Madurai and was responded to by the CPIO on 18.7.2014, denying the information under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. It is noted that the FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO. They further submitted that another application dated 11.10.2014 of the Appellant seeking information concerning the same lady employee was considered and disposed of by the Commission vide order No. CIC/SH/A/2014/003111 dated 19.2.2016. The Respondents maintained that one point of the RTI application dated 4.7.2014, under consideration in the instant case, is the same as in the RTI application dated 11.10.2014. They stated that the order dated 19.2.2016 of the Commission was complied with. It is noted that in his second appeal to the Commission, the Appellant has also referred to the proviso to Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, to the effect that any information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature, shall not be denied to any person, in favour of his request for information.
3. We have considered the records and the submissions of both the parties. It is noted that while denying a part of the information under Section 8 (1) (j), the CPIO stated that the designation of the employee concerned was SWO A (clerical cadre) and she had worked as a peon / PTSK for almost ten years. The CPIO further stated that she was appointed / promoted as SWO A on 30.7.2012 as per bank’s procedure for promotion from substaff to clerical cadre under “Written Test Channel”. The CPIO thus provided information in response to certain queries of the RTI application.
4. We now come to the specific queries of the application. At point No. 1, the Appellant sought the designation of the employee concerned. The CPIO informed him that the designation of the employee at the time of his reply (18.7.2014) was SWO A (clerical cadre). At point No. 3, the Appellant sought information regarding the period for which the employee concerned worked as peon. The CPIO informed him that the period was almost ten years. However, he is directed to inform the Appellant about the specific period during which the lady employee worked as peon. At point No. 4, the information sought is regarding the date of her appointment as Assistant / clerk. The CPIO informed the Appellant that the lady employee was appointed / promoted as SWO A on 30.7.2012. Thus, this query stands answered. The CPIO should provide the information as above, in response to point No. 3 of the RTI application, free of charge, within fifteen days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. The information sought at point No. 5 is whether the employee concerned had passed the competitive test for Assistant in bank conducted by the Banking Service Commission or any other authority or any departmental test. The CPIO informed the Appellant that the employee was promoted as per bank’s procedure for promotion under written test channel. In our view, this query too stands answered. The information sought at points No. 6, 7 and 8 is regarding the educational qualifications of the employee concerned, her date of birth, whether she is a widow and whether she belongs to SC/ST category; as well as copies of certificates regarding her educational qualifications. All this information was denied by the Respondents under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. The information sought at point No. 2 was regarding the “circumstances / merits” under which the employee concerned was promoted as Assistant within “1 or 2 years of service as peon.” This information too was denied by the CPIO under Section 8 (1) (j). In so far as the information sought at point No. 2 regarding the details of the promotion of the lady employee is concerned, we note the following observations made by the High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 8.7.2014 in THDC India Ltd. vs. R. K. Raturi [W.P.(C) 903/2013]:
“ 13. Consequently, this Court is of the view that ACR grading/ratings as also the marks given to the candidates based on the said ACR grading/ratings and their interview marks contained in the DPC proceedings can be disclosed only to the concerned employee and not to any other employee as that would constitute third party information. This Court is also of the opinion that third party information can only be disclosed if a finding of a larger public interest being involved is given by CIC and further if third party procedure as prescribed under Sections 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: and 19(4) of the RTI Act is followed.”
Further, in its judgment in Union Public Service Commission vs. Gourhari Kamila, the Supreme Court considered a matter in which the Commission had directed the public authority in that case to disclose information regarding the experience, together with the certificates of experience, of the candidates who were called for interview in the course of a recruitment process. In its judgment dated 6.8.2013, the Supreme Court struck down the above direction of the Commission. Moreover, the High Court of Delhi made the following observations in its judgment dated 21.11.2014 in UPSC vs. Hawa Singh [W.P.(C)
6086/2013]:
“ 7. In view of the above, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present case is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Gouhari Kamila (supra) is well founded. Clearly, the Bio Data of the other selected candidates is a third party information and is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; and 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.”
5. In view of the foregoing, we would not interfere with the decision of the Respondents to deny the information in response to points No. 2, 6, 7 and 8 of the RTI application. Regarding the reference made by the Appellant to the proviso to Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, we note the following observations made by the High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 30.11.2009 in Union of India vs. Central Information Commission & Ors. [Writ Petition Civil No. 8396 of 2009]:
“43. A proviso can be enacted by the legislature to serve several purposes. In Sundaram Pillai versus Patte Birman (1985) 1 SCC 591 the scope and purpose of a proviso and an explanation has been examined in detail. Normally, a proviso is meant to be an exception to something in the main enactment or to qualify something enacted therein which but for the proviso would be within the purview of the enactment. A proviso cannot be torn apart from the main enactment nor can it be used to qualify and set at naught, the object of the main enactment Sarthi on “Interpretation of Statutes”, referred to in the said judgment, states that a proviso is subordinate to the main section and one of the principles which can be applied in a given case is that a proviso would not enlarge an enactment except for compelling reasons. It is unusual to import legislation from a proviso into the body of the statute. But in exceptional cases a proviso in itself may amount to a substantive provision. The proviso in the present case is a guiding factor and not a substantive provision which overrides 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. It does not undo or rewrite Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act and does not itself create any new right. The purpose is only to clarify that while deciding the question of larger public interest i.e., the question of balance between ‘public interest in form of right to privacy’ and ‘public interest in access to information’ is to be balanced.”
The Appellant has not established any larger public interest for disclosure of the information to him. The doubts mentioned by him regarding the promotion of the lady employee cannot become the ground of larger public interest.
6. The Appellant has also prayed for imposition of penalty on the CPIO and award of compensation to him. It is noted that the RTI application dated 4.7.2014 was responded to by the CPIO on 18.7.2014. Therefore, it was responded to well within the period stipulated in the RTI Act. In our decisions above, we have upheld the CPIO’s reply to most of the queries of the RTI application and directed him to provide additional information only in one case, i.e. point No. 3 of the RTI application. There is no ground to jump to the conclusion that the CPIO denied the information wilfully, as alleged by the Appellant, only on account of the fact that the Commission has differed with the CPIO’s decision in one case (point No. 3). The Appellant has not established that the information was denied wilfully. He has also not established the loss or detriment, suffered by him, as a result of the reply of the Respondents, a large part of which has been upheld by the Commission. Therefore, we see no ground either for imposition of penalty on the CPIO or award of compensation to the Appellant.
7. With the direction in paragraph 4 and the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sharat Sabharwal)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri A. Manuel v. Central Bank of India in File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/000021