Reasons for suspension of the appellant, the process followed by the bank and the viewpoint of disciplinary authority was denied u/s 8(1)(e) - Appellant: exemption section is untenable because information pertains to him - CIC: inspection of file ordered
29 Dec, 2013O R D E R
Facts:
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 27-2-012 seeking information regarding forwarding dates of appeals dated 12-3-2012 and 27-3-2012 to the appellate authority through disciplinary authority, Circle Office, Ahmedabad in the matter of charge sheets dated 18-5-2006 and 1411991 respectively and other related issues.
2. The CPIO responded on 30-7-2012, providing some information to the appellant while some was denied under 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; 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; of the RTI Act from the disclosure of exempted clauses. The appellant filed an appeal with the first appellate authority (FAA) on 16-8-2012. The FAA responded on 3-9-2012 and concurred with the views of the CPIO. The appellant approached the Commission on 4-12-2012 in a second appeal.
Hearing:
3. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 2.7.2012 and stated that he had sought information on certain points pertaining to the departmental proceedings launched against him by the bank in which his focus is on the reasons why he was suspended, the process which the bank followed and the viewpoint of the disciplinary authority. The appellant stated that the RTI application is clear about the information that is being sought.
4. The respondent stated that the bank’s view point was that as this was a matter of departmental proceedings, it should be kept confidential and it was in this light that the information was by and large denied to the appellant and in this context, 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; 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; of the RTI Act was cited. The respondent also stated that the information was held by the bank in a fiduciary capacity.
5. During the hearing, when the respondent was asked why is the bank treating the matter of departmental proceedings in a fiduciary relationship, the respondent stated that the bank treated this as fiduciary relationship because it has the nature of confidentiality.
6. The appellant stated that what the respondent is saying is untenable because he is asking for information which pertains to his own case.
Decision:
7. The respondent is directed to enable inspection of the relevant file by the appellant and provide photocopies of the documents in context of the RTI application. Compliance must be done within 30 days of this order. Appeal is disposed of. Copy of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri G.R. Parmar v. Punjab National Bank in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2013/000247/05601