Can an employee be promoted during any pending enquiry against him?

Background

The appellant wanted to know that whether an officer of the bank can be promoted to Scale 1 to Scale VI if any case lies pending against him in any court of law under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code or if there was any departmental/vigilance enquiry pending against him. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information observing that what was sought was not 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; “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 RTI Act. Aggrieved with this order, the appellant filed a complaint to the Central Information Commission (CIC) against the PIO which directed the First Appellate Authority (FAA) to look into the matter and ensure the disclosure of the information. However, the FAA also did not provide any information and merely endorsed the response of the PIO, forcing the appellant to file the second appeal.

View of CIC   

The Commission directed the PIO to disclose the sought information stating that the PIO should have forwarded the relevant paragraphs/ pages from the departmental promotion rules relating to any such bar. In case there was no such bar, the PIO should have intimated the same. Instead of doing any such thing, the PIO chose the easy alternative of simply refusing the information by claiming that it did not amount to information in the first place. The Commission pointed that this tendency is not in conformity with the spirit of the RTI Act and must be shunned.

Comments

There is a thin line demarcating ‘information’ as defined under 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; “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 RTI Act from seeking interpretation. As far as possible, a PIO should avoid too legalistic interpretation of an application received under RTI and act in the spirit of the RTI Act.

Citation: Shri N K Sharan v. Punjab National Bank in File No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000940