Providing incomplete and incorrect information under RTI
The Appellant sought information regarding the promotion to MMG III, the posting details of two officers and the reason why certain recoveries were not made from him when he was removed from the service of the bank. Partial information was provided by the Public Information Officer (PIO) and First Appellate Authority (FAA). The appellant filed the second appeal claiming that incomplete and incorrect information has been provided to him.
View of CIC
During the hearing, the respondent submitted that the information was exactly as it was provided by the relevant division of the bank. The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that since the appellant has pointed out mistakes in the posting details of the officers, there was a need to verify the records and to confirm if the information provided is right. The Commission directed the PIO to consult the relevant division of the bank to find out the correct posting details of both these officers from the very beginning till now and to provide the same to the appellant. However, for the queries regarding ‘why certain recoveries were not made while termination from the bank's service’, the Commission held that it did not amount to information within the meaning of Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, as it looked like explanation/clarification more rather than the information.
Citation: Shri Ashok Saxena v. Union Bank of India in File No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000446 & 2140
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2012/CIC/172
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission