Appellant alleged that some bank officials had raised loan in his name & misappropriated the same - Copies of charge sheets issued to the said officials & information regarding the action taken against them were denied - CIC upheld the denial order

Date of Hearing : 18th April, 2016

Date of Decision : 28th April, 2016

ORDER

1. The appellant, Shri Bhagavathula Sivananda Raju, vide his RTI application dated 18.02.2015 sought information on nine points, such as, copies of charge sheets framed against certain officers of the public authority along with the action taken against them; terms and condition followed by the bank while sanctioning loans to three persons, namely, Sri R. Venkata Ramana, Smt. R. Vimala and Smt. K. Sridevi; particulars of payment of loan sanctioned to Sri K. Ram Prasad & VC builders and copy of agreement between the bank and the builder and so on.

2. The CPIO vide letter dated 17.03.2015 declined the disclosure of information to the appellant on the ground that it related to “personal information” of third party and that the same was held by the bank in its “fiduciary relationship”. The CPIO cited exemption under section 8(1) (e) and 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act.

3. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant preferred an appeal dated 16.04.2015 before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 04.05.2015 concurred with the decision of the CPIO, while adding that the information sought by the appellant in respect of charge sheet framed against the bank officers attracted exemption under section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act and that the information sought on remaining points with respect to the particular of loans of third party fell under the exemption category of section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; read with 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 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.

4. The appellant then filed the present appeal before the Commission on 05.10.2015 challenging the decision of the respondents.

5. The matter was heard by the Commission. The counsel for the appellant alleged that some bank officials (mentioned in the RTI application), in collusion with each other, had raised certain loan amounts in the name of the appellant and his wife and misappropriated the same. Therefore, the appellant wanted to obtain copies of charge sheets issued to the said officials and the information regarding the action taken against them by the bank. The counsel requested the Commission to direct the respondents to provide this information to the appellant. The respondents stated that some irregularities were found in the aforesaid transactions and consequently the officials, who were, prima facie, found to be involved in it, had been charge sheeted and that currently the matter was under inquiry. They also mentioned that the bank had instituted a suit against the borrowers in the Debts Recovery Tribunal. They also informed that they had provided the particulars of disbursal of loan amount to the appellant vide letter dated 11.04.2016 through registered post. The counsel for the appellant, however, denied receipt of said information by the appellant. The respondents stated that they would provide another copy of letter dated 11.04.2016 to the appellant.

6. The Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Cen.Information Commr. & Ors.; Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012; decided on 03.10.2012, while dealing with a similar issue, had held as under:

“13. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression “personal information”, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.”

7. In view of the above settled position of law, the Commission holds that the information sought by the appellant (i.e. copies of charge sheets issued to the bank officials) falls under the exemption category of 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, being personal information of third party, and thus cannot be provided to the appellant. The appellant has also not established any larger public interest justifying the disclosure of this information. The Commission upholds the decision of the respondents. The CPIO is, however, directed to provide a copy of aforesaid letter 11.04.2016 to the appellant within 1 week of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of.

(Manjula Prasher)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Bhagavathula Sivananda Raju v. State Bank of India in Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2015/001958