The names, designations and the present postings of the officers who decided appellant’s date of joining for computation of his retirement benefits was denied u/s 8(1)(j) - PNB tendered an unconditional apology for the lapse - CIC: Provide the information
21 Dec, 2018
O R D E R
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, P.F. & Pension Department, Head Office, Rajendra Place, New Delhi seeking information on two points, inter-alia
(i) names, designations, addresses and place of present postings of the officials (Senior Manager, General Manager, Trustee etc., who signed the approval order dated 19.06.2008 and
(ii) names, designations, addresses and place of present postings of the officials who signed letter dated 23.02.2011.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the information sought has been wrongly denied 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. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the respondents to provide complete and correct information and to impose a penalty on the CPIO for denying the information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Bal Kishan Gupta attended the hearing through video conferencing and the respondent Shri Ranjit Singh, Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Head Office, Management Audit & Review Division, Dwarka, was present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that he had sought the names, designations and the present postings of the officers who were responsible for considering his date of joining as 23.09.1977 instead of 23.01.1977 for the purpose of computation of his pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits. However, the information sought by him was wrongly denied on the grounds that it pertains to personal information of third parties, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third parties. Hence, its disclosure is exempted 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. The respondent admitted that the information was wrongly denied to the appellant due to an error of judgement. The respondent tendered his unconditional apology for this lapse and requested the Commission to condone the same. The respondent, however, assured that the details of the officers concerned shall be provided to the appellant.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, directs the CPIO to provide the information sought by the appellant to him within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.
7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sudhir Bhargava
Information Commissioner
Citation: Bal Kishan Gupta v. CPIO: Punjab National Bank in Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2017/143668, Date: 05.12.2018