Appellant complained that the bank has favoured an employee for promotion overlooking him - CIC: dates of various promotions of an employee it is a matter of public record; the performance marks is exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j)

Facts

This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 22.7.2013 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on four points regarding the promotion and performance marks of Shri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, an employee of the Respondent bank. The CPIO responded on 25.7.2013 and denied the information under Section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority on 10.8.2013. In his order dated 19.8.2013, the FAA upheld the CPIO’s reply. The Appellant approached the CIC in second appeal on 5.9.2013.

2. We heard the submissions of the Appellant and the Respondents. The Respondents reiterated the reply already given by them to the Appellant. The Appellant, who has been an employee of the bank, has a grievance that the bank was unfair to him in the matter of promotion, but that Shri Srivastava was favoured in regard to his promotions. He submitted that he had sought the information, mentioned in his RTI application, in the above context. The Appellant also challenged the action of the Respondents to invoke Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act to deny the information to him.

3. We have considered the records and the submissions made by both the parties before us. We note that as far as the information sought as per points No. 1, 3 and 4 of the RTI application, regarding dates of various promotions of Shri Srivastava is concerned, it is a matter of public record. Accordingly, the CPIO is directed to provide this information to the Appellant, within twenty days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. As regards the information concerning the performance marks of Shri Srivastava, sought at point No. 2 of the RTI application, we note that while it is not exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (d), it is certainly exempted from disclosure 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. of the RTI Act. Accordingly, we see no ground to interfere with the decision of the Respondents to deny the information in response to point No. 2 of the RTI application.

4. With the above direction and observations, the appeal is disposed of.

5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.

(Sharat Sabharwal)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Ramesh Chander v. Bank of Baroda in File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/001676/SH