Respondent: The complainant was charge sheeted and as per the rules, some of the details like interview test marks, group discussion marks and total marks obtained by the complainant was kept in sealed cover - CIC: No merit in complaint

1. The issue under consideration i.e. the reliefs sought by the complainant in the complaint dated 09.09.2021 due to alleged non-supply of information vide RTI application dated 03.03.2021 are as under:-

Impose maximum penalty on the concerned CPIO as per the provision of sub-section (1) and (2) of section 20 of the RTI Act.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the complainant filed an application dated 09.09.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai, seeking following information:

(i) The complainant appeared for promotion test from scale 4 to scale 5 in the year 2018, information sought for performance to take up the matter with appropriate authority.

Online test marks

Interview marks

APAR marks

Group discussion marks

Total marks obtained

Min cutoff marks for selection

The CPIO vide letter dated 05.4.2021 replied to the complainant. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant filed first appeal dated 25.05.2021. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 07.07.2021 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by the First Appellate Authority order, the complainant filed complaint dated 09.09.2021 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The complainant has filed the instant complaint dated 09.09.2021 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The complainant requested the Commission to take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 05.04.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:

“Online test marks. Marks were displayed to the individual member.

Interview test marks. Result kept in sealed cover hence unable to provide details.

Group discussion marks. Result kept in sealed cover hence unable to provide details.

Total marks obtained. Result kept in sealed cover hence unable to provide details.

Min cut-off marks for selection. As per clause No 19 of the promotion policy for officers – 2018.”

The FAA vide order dated 07.07.2021 agreed with the reply given by the CPIO.

5. The complainant and on behalf of the respondent Ms. R Mahalakshmi, CPIO, Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The complainant inter alia submitted that he raised issues of corruption in settlement of OTS by top executives and harassment of employees in the respondent bank. Hence, the respondent had resorted to harass him and denied the promotion. The complainant further submitted that he sought information about his performance in the promotion process, vide RTI application dated 03.03.21, but the CPIO had denied the information knowingly and deliberately to cover the misdeeds of Public Authority.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had provided point-wise reply to the complainant vide letter dated 05.04.2021. They further submitted that at the time of promotion process, the complainant was charge sheeted and as per the rules, some of the details like interview test marks, group discussion marks and total marks obtained by the complainant was kept in sealed cover. It was further submitted that since, the complainant was punished, so sealed cover was not opened. They informed that in the sealed cover process, if the applicant/charge sheeted employee exonerated, then only sealed cover was opened and given to him. Besides, they informed that online test marks, and APAR marks were already displayed to the individual member including the complainant.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that point-wise reply was given by the respondent vide letter dated 05.04.2021. The respondent during the course of hearing submitted that the complainant was charge sheeted and as per the rules, some of the details like interview test marks, group discussion marks and total marks obtained by the complainant was kept in sealed cover. It was further submitted that since, the complainant was punished, so sealed cover was not opened. However, they informed that online test marks and APAR marks were already displayed to the individual member including the complainant. The respondent while exercising their wisdom denied some information and that being so no mala fide could be attributed to the decision taken by them. In view of the above and the reply having been given to the complainant, there appears to be no merit in the complaint. Accordingly, the complaint is rejected.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

Suresh Chandra

Information Commissioner

Citation: Pramod Kumar Thakur v. Indian Overseas Bank, CIC/IOVBK/C/2021/140197; 17.05.2023