Multiple information including the meaning of ‘bank constituents’ in relation to loans & advances, region wise branches etc. - Respondent: odd for a bank employee to ask the meaning of ‘bank constituents’ which is a general term - CIC: Sec 7(9) applicable
25 Sep, 2013Multiple information including the meaning of “bank constituents” in relation to loans and advances, region wise branches etc. - Respondent: odd for a bank employee to ask the meaning of “bank constituents” which is a general term used with reference to someone who stood to benefit from the bank schemes - CIC: no case made out to direct the respondent to compile the information sought in the RTI application - Section 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. applies
O R D E R
RTI application
1. The appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO on 2.8.2012 seeking information on the number of GCCs issued since implementation, the meaning of “bank constituents” in relation to loans and advances, the number of branches region wise, etc. In all, information has been sought on 7 points. The CPIO, on 1.9.2012, denied the information.
2. The appellant filed an appeal on 22.9.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA upheld the reply of CPIO on 17.10.2012. The appellant approached the Commission on 28.1.2013 in second appeal.
Hearing
3. The appellant and the respondent both participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 2.8.2012 and stated that he has not been provided the information citing various clauses of the RTI Act. The appellant stated that he had sought information through the RTI application because he wants to know why he was singled out for being charge sheeted and punished.
5. The respondent stated that the RTI application of 2.8.2012 was responded to on 1.9.2012 in which the information was denied to the appellant by citing section 8(1)(d), 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 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 RTI Act. The respondent stated that much of the information sought was of commercial confidence and held by the bank in trust. The respondent stated that the FAA had also upheld the reply of CPIO on 17.10.2012.
6. The respondent further stated that the appellant is a working employee of the bank who has access to the information from the bank itself and that it is beyond comprehension why the appellant is taking the RTI route to get such large volume of information. The respondent said that the information sought was vast in its dimension and at the same time, some points were seeking internal circulars. 7. The respondent stated that the appellant is a charge sheeted employee of the bank who has been charge sheeted on earlier occasions also and in a recent decision, 15 increments of the appellant have also been stopped.
8. The respondent stated that the RTI application is actually seeking information that would take a considerable time and expenses to collect, which is beyond the resources of the bank. The respondent stated that point No.1 of the 7 points in the RTI application was seeking information about the total number of general credit cards issued by the entire bank, branch wise, since the implementation of the scheme in 2006. The respondent further explained that it is odd for a bank employee to ask the meaning of “bank constituents” which is a general term used with reference to someone who stood to benefit from the bank schemes, e.g., someone who has a SB account. The respondent stated that even point 3 seeking information about the number of branches region wise by a bank employee is very strange.
9. What emerged from the hearing was that the appellant is working in the bank and he has been subjected to disciplinary proceedings. In this light the appellant had also stated that the RTI application has been triggered by his desire to know why he has been subjected to disciplinary proceedings and charge sheet. During the hearing, the respondent had posed a question as to why should the RTI route be used by an employee who is already conversant with the bank’s working and is aware of the bank’s policies and operational systems with regard to the implementation of the various bank programmes that have been referred to in the RTI application. The respondent had already stated that whatever be the motivation behind the RTI application, the fact is that the compilation of the information being sought would be needless and serve no purpose.
10. It is obvious, in light of the hearing, that there is no case made out to direct the respondent to compile the information sought in the RTI application. Section 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. of the RTI Act applies to this matter.
Decision
11. The RTI application need not be acted upon taking into account section 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. of the RTI Act. No intervention by the Commission is required. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to both the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Citation: Shri Bhim Singh v. Haryana Gramin Bank in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2013/000857/04712