Information about a bank employees and legal counsel involved in the sanction of certain loans was denied u/s 8(1)(g)& 8(1)(h) - issue was under vigilance enquiry - CIC: respondent to take action in accordance with a previous order of the CIC
5 Dec, 2013O R D E R
RTI application
1. The appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO on 6.8.2012 seeking information about the employees of the bank and legal counsel involved in the sanction of certain loans in 2010. The CPIO denied the information on 3.9.2012 under section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. However, before receiving the reply of the PIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 13.9.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA).The FAA, on 25.10.2012, found no scope to interfere in the CPIO’s decision exempting internal notes and notings to the appellant. The appellant approached the Commission on 16.11.2012 in second appeal.
Hearing
3. The appellant’s representative participated in the hearing through video conferencing. The respondent did not participate in the hearing. However, a written submission from him was received in the Commission on 6.11.2013.
4. The appellant referred to the RTI application of 6.8.2012 and stated that he wanted information about the loans given to two entities by the respondent bank in the year 2010. In this connection, he cited his two earlier RTI applications, which were decided by the Commission vide No. CIC/SG/A/2012/001170/19230 dated 13.6.2012 and No.CIC/VS/ A/2012/001694/05198 dated 22.10.2013. The appellant stated that these orders of the Commission have not been complied with by the respondent.
5. In the written submission, the respondent has focused on the points raised in the RTI application. The respondent has stated that the issues regarding granting of credit facilities to various third parties was under vigilance enquiry and the bank was taking departmental action against the officials and that correspondence was also going on with CBI for registration of complaint.
6. In these circumstances, the respondent mentioned, it was not appropriate to adjudicate and identify the officials in respect of their alleged involvement in the various processes of granting loans. Hence the information was denied under section 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; and section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act. The respondent further mentioned that the FAA disposed of the appeal on 25.10.2012 relying upon the Commission’s various earlier decisions.
Decision
7. The respondent is directed to take action in the matter in accordance with the aforementioned order of the Commission dated 22.10.2013. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to both the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commission
Citation: Shri P.Balachandar v. Indian Overseas Bank in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001833/05456