Information about officers who were penalized for irregular LTC bills and were promoted was denied u/s 8(1)(j) - Appellant: he was punished while others were let off for the same misconduct and were promoted - CIC: disclosure is in public interest

Information about officers who were penalized for irregular LTC bills and were promoted was denied u/s 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. 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. - appellant argued that he was adversely affected for the wrongful act of submitting a wrong LTC bill, whereas the others were let off for the same misconduct and rewarded with promotions - CIC: provide the information so that the correct facts come to light, which is in public interest

O R D E R

RTI application

1. The appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO on 27.8.2012 seeking information about the officers who were penalized for their irregular, inflated or false LTC bills during 201112 and who were promoted to the next grade during 201112 or 201213. The CPIO denied the information on 18.9.2012 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. 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 2005.

2. Not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 27.9.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA upheld the reply of CPIO on 18.10.2012. The appellant approached the Commission on 2.11.2012 in second appeal.

Hearing

3. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 27.8.2012 and stated that he was seeking information about the officers in NABARD on whom penalty was imposed as their LTC claims were considered to be irregular, inflated or false by the CVCHO during 201112 and who were given personal or regular promotion to the next grade.

4. The respondent stated that the information comes under the cover 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. 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 as this was personal information and giving of any such information would amount to unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the officers and secondly no public interest would be served by providing the information.

5. The appellant stated that this is a matter where a public institution is involved and the submission of inflated LTC bills was not only an issue of squandering of public money, but was also a malfeasance and misdemeanor, which should have led to major punishment, but instead the officers have been rewarded with promotions. The appellant said that the respondent was concealing information to protect the wrongdoers who submitted inflated LTC bills, and was also defending the NABARD policy which was untenable as it was rewarding mischief and wrongdoers.

6. The appellant further stated that he has a stake in getting the information as he was a person who was adversely affected for the wrongful act of submitting a wrong LTC bill, whereas the others were let off for the same misconduct and rewarded with promotions.

7. The respondent stated that the irregularity having been committed by the officers in giving inflated LTC bills did not act as a bar on their promotion. The respondent said that the bank has taken action to recover the excess payments made. The respondent further stated that whatever the officers have done, is an irregularity, but the bank has a system devised for taking action in such cases. The respondent explained that certain rules have been formulated according to which if an officer submits wrong bills, he has to pay back the excess amount claimed and he is debarred from the next two LTC sessions. The respondent stated that this does not impact on the promotions.

8. It is clear from the hearing that the bank takes adverse notice of inflated bills and follows it up with a penalty mechanism. The appellant has alleged discrimination and adhocism in the implementation of the mechanism, and in this context has sought the information as per the RTI application. It is in the public interest that the application of rules must subscribe to uniformity and should not be allowed to cover up wrongdoing. Hence, the information sought in the RTI application should not be denied to the appellant so that the correct facts come to light. This will reveal whether some staff members are being granted promotions despite the submission of wrong LTC bills whereas some like the appellant have been disallowed promotions.

Decision

9. The respondent is directed to provide to the appellant, within 30 days of this order, the information sought in the RTI application of 27.8.2012. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to both the parties.

(Vijai Sharma)

Information Commission

Citation: Shri Devendra Dutta v. National Bank for Agriculture & Rural Development in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001805/05310