Information regarding creation of swift ID/PW account alleging fraudulent transactions that took place in bank - PIO: concerned officer who had attempted the fraud had been dismissed and the investigation was going on - CIC: appeal rejected
3 Jan, 2014Information regarding creation of swift ID/PW account was denied u/s 8(1)(d), 8(1)(e), 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; & 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. - Appellant stated that he wanted to know details about the fraudulent transaction that took place in the bank - PIO: officer who had attempted the fraud had been dismissed and the investigation was going on; appellant had no relation to the attempted fraud - CIC: appeal rejected
ORDER
Facts
1. The appellant filed an application dated 18.05.2012 under the RTI Act, seeking information about creation of swift ID/PW for a particular period, details of person who had created the swift message, login and logout time in the CBS of the person who had created the swift messages, etc. CPIO denied the information vide letter dated 14.07.2012. Appellant filed first appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA) on 14.08.2012. FAA vide order dated 03.09.2012 upheld the decision of the CPIO. Appellant filed this present second appeal on 11.12.2012.
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 about creation of swift ID/PW for a particular period, details of person who had created the swift message, login and logout time in the CBS of the person who had created the swift messages, etc.
4. Appellant stated that he was an ex-employee of the bank and there was a fraud in the respondent bank. Appellant stated that he wanted to know details about the fraudulent transaction that took place in the bank. Appellant stated that the respondent had contravened the timeline prescribed in the Act.
5. Respondent stated that there was an attempted fraud in a branch of the bank. Respondent stated that a lady officer was involved in that attempted fraud. Respondent stated that the lady officer sent some swift messages for transaction of a huge amount. Respondent stated that their internal banking system was able to intercept the transaction and no fraud took place.
6. Respondent stated that the lady officer who had attempted the fraud had been dismissed by the bank, and the investigation was going on by the police after a FIR was lodged on 27.12.2010 by the bank. Respondent stated that the appellant had no relation to the attempted fraud, therefore the information sought by the appellant was denied under section 8(1)(d), section 8(1)(e), 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; , 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 Act.
Decision
7. Order of the FAA is upheld. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri B S Walia v. State Bank of Patiala in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2013/000208/05567