Copy of applications of members of eSBIN seeking voluntary retirement, payment of exgratia & the copy of notesheet were denied 8(1)(j) & 8(1)(e) - Applicant: as association office bearer, information needed to help the families - CIC: denial upheld

Facts:

1. The appellant, Mr. Alok Khare, has submitted the RTI application dated 04 May 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Bhopal, seeking copy of applications of all members and officers of eSBIN seeking voluntary retirement received during 26-08-2010 to 15-05-2012 application requesting for payment of exgratia from the family of employees and officers of eSBIN who died during 01-08-2005 to 31-03-2012 and also the copy of each notesheet prepared upon receipt of applications mentioned above.

2. Vide reply dated 17 December 2012, the CPIO informed that the information sought by the appellant pertains to the employees/officials who applied for voluntary retirement and information of dependents of the deceased employees/officials is held by the bank under fiduciary relationship and hence exempted from disclosure u/s 8 (1)(j) &(e) of the RTI Act, 2005. Not being satisfied with the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred appeal dated 05 July 2012 to the first appellate authority (FAA).

3. On not receiving any reply from the FAA within the reasonable time, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission, vide letter dated 05 November 2012 on the ground that he has been denied from information which could have been useful to him in his future action.

4. The matter was heard today via videoconferencing. The appellant, Shri Alok Khare, was represented by Shri Promod Nahar. The State Bank of India was represented by Shri Benoy, Manager (Law) and Shri S.K. Bhattacharya Nodal Officer, RTI.

5. The appellant stated that he was not satisfied with the reply given to him by the CPIO where he stated that the information held by the public authority with reference to those officers/employees who had applied for voluntary retirement was personal information of those officers/employees and, therefore, exempt 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. 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. and 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. The appellant added that the information relating to applications of officials requesting for payment of ex-gratia from the families of the employees and officers who had expired during 1.8.2005 to 31.3.2012 had also been denied to him under same sections. He stated that the applicant is the office bearer of the association and, therefore, he requires this information to be able to help the officials in question and the families of the deceased officials. He further added that the date of appointment and date of retirement, etc of public servants is always disclosed and that there was no question of fiduciary relationship.

6. The respondents submitted that the applications submitted by the officers/officials for voluntary retirement contained a lot of personal information. The note sheet relating to these cases was also denied as it would give the grounds on which voluntary retirement is sought. In the same way, the applications for exgratia payment also contained a lot of personal information which cannot be divulged to third party. In view of these, the public authority has sought exemption under sections 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. and 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.

Decision Notice

7. The Commission upholds the decision of the CPIO. The case is dismissed.

(Manjula Prasher)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Mr. Alok Khare v. State Bank of India in Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2013/000230/MP