Information regarding departmental proceeding against five officials was denied u/s 8(1)(j) – Appellant: information sought for the judicial process – CIC: inform the norms on the basis on which the respective punishments were decided
24 Oct, 2013O R D E R
RTI application
1. The appellant, referring to punishment awarded to him in a departmental proceeding, filed an RTI application with the PIO on 4.6.2012 seeking (i) proceedings and final orders about an enquiry conducted against two officers tried for the same allegations in Trichy branch; (ii) copy of charges, enquiry proceedings and final orders about certain officers in Kulumani, Banasankari, Shimoga and Sowcarpet Branches. The CPIO denied the information on 5.7.2012 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.
2. Not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 19.7.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA upheld the reply of CPIO on 24.8.2012 finding no infirmity in the reply of PIO. The appellant approached the Commission on 10.10.2012 in second appeal.
Hearing
3. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 4.6.2012 and stated that the information sought was essentially to look after his own matter in the court and also to highlight the manner in which the respondent bank had discriminated against him causing him pecuniary hardship while also profiling the adhoc manner in which the bank has taken decisions. The appellant said that whereas he was punished severely by the respondent bank, many others were let off for the same offence.
4. The appellant stated that he had sought information pertaining to five employees of the bank and the information that he has sought will help him in the legal matter that he is proceeding with. The appellant said that three of the five officials he has named in the RTI application are of another sequence of offences, but two of these are officers who had cases similar to his. The appellant said that whereas he has been very substantially reduced in rank and retired with very meagre pension, the other officers were let off lightly.
5. The respondent stated that this is a fact that whereas three of the officers named in the RTI application are of another sequence of events and only two are those whose cases were similar to his case, but whatever be the distinction between them, the respondent stated, the information sought is confidential and third party information and that is why the information was denied to the appellant 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.
6. The appellant stated that the reason why he is seeking the information is because he wants the material for the purpose of the judicial process in the court and if he does not get the facts, his case in the court will be handicapped.
Decision
7. The respondent is directed to inform the appellant, within 30 days of this order, about the norms, if any, on the basis of which the respective punishments were decided about the officers in context of the RTI application. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to both the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commission
Citation: Shri S. Ganapathy v. Bank of Baroda in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001621/05061