Information pertaining to an inquiry conducted by the bank into irregularities by the employees was denied u/s 8(1)(j) - CIC: it is a matter between the employee & employer governed by the service rules & is one’s personal information, appeal dismissed
17 Apr, 2014ORDER
1. According to the appeal, the Appellant filed an RTI application on 15.9.2011, seeking information on ten points pertaining to an inquiry conducted by the bank into irregularities/misbehaviour by the employees in one of its branches and regarding a bank ATM. The CPIO responded on 15.10.2011, denying all the information 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. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority on 29.10.2011. In his order dated 16.11.2011, the FAA directed the CPIO to provide all the information. The CPIO wrote again to the Appellant on 23.11.2011, denying information on points No. 1 to 5 of the RTI application under Section “6(1) (j)” of the RTI Act and provided information on points No. 6 to 10. The Appellant approached the CIC in second appeal on 13.1.2012.
2. We heard the submissions of the Appellant and the Respondents. The Appellant stated that information on points No. 1 to 5 had been withheld without any justification. In this context, he further submitted that in his letter dated 23.11.2011, the CPIO had referred to Section 6 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, which does not exist. The Respondents stated that this was an error and the reference of the CPIO was to 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. , which was also mentioned in his first reply dated 15.10.2011. The Appellant mentioned some shortcomings in the information provided on points No. 6 to 10. However, having gone over the records, we note that information on these points has been provided. The Appellant also submitted that information in response to points No. 1 to 5 in the RTI application be also provided to him. In this context, we note that this information pertains to Departmental enquiry against some employees of the bank. We further note that in its judgment dated 3.10.2012 in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission and Ors., the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as follows:“ 13. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.”
3. The Appellant made no submission to establish any larger public interest that would warrant the disclosure of the above information, with the exception of his unsubstantiated allegation regarding irregularities / misbehaviour in the concerned branch of the bank. Accordingly, we see no reason to interfere with the decision of the CPIO to deny this information under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
(Sharat Sabharwal)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Radhakrishan Rawat v. Bank of Baroda in File No. CIC/SM/A/2012/000228/SH