Central Information Commission
Mr.R Muthukrishnan vs Indian Overseas Bank on 14 June, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/001255/19256
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/001255
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. M.Muthukrishnan,
No.140, Lakshmipuram,
PALANI 624601
Respondent : Mr. V. C. Ramachandran,
Public Information Officer & DGM, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, P.B. No. 3765, 763, Anna Salai, Chennai-600002 RTI application filed on : 02/09/2011 PIO replied : 30/09/2011 First appeal filed on : 12/01/2012 First Appellate Authority order : 06/02/2012 Second Appeal received on : 18/04/2012 Information Sought:
1. The undersigned was terminated from service on 29-04-1997. The charged loan account were about 300 approximately in numbers connected to 4 branches. Totally 8 Managers were also involved as sanctioning authorities. They are:
a. Keelakarai Branch i. Mr T.R.Swaminathan Roll No 1226 ii. Mr M,Ramamchandran, Roll No 7980 iii. Mr. S.P.Alagappan b. Thiruppulai Branch i. Mr. V.Karutha Pandin ii. Mr.K.Palaniappan Roll No 4408 c. Uchipuli i. Mr. Ravindran d. Thangachimadam i. Mr. Ravindran ii. Mr.Petha Perumal
2. The undersigned had recommended about 30% of total advances as recommending authority The investigating officer namely:
a. Mr.A.Gnanappa b. Mr.S.Lawrance and c. Mr.S.Rajaraman Have furnished incorrect information i.e they reported as if myself have recommended all the loans. I clearly noted these wrong Accountability vide my replies/defence briefs to the charge sheets. As permitted by your office under RTI Act vide your letter RTI/136/2010-11 dated 19-7-2010, I visited all the
3 branches and could able to collect only 30% of document. In branches keelalarai & Thangacha madam, all documents were purposely destroyed despite the cases are pending with the court. Now, I am in a position to initiate legal action against the officer and Executives of the banks fixing personal liability in the appropriate court of law
3. To initiate legal action in a perfect manner I, now request your office to provide the following :
a. 8 charge sheet copies (duly attested by your office) served to 8 managers b. 8 order of punishment (duly attested by your office) served to 8 managers.
The names of the managers (branch wise) were already noted in this letter.Page 1 of 4
c. The present Postal address of:
i. Mr.S.Rajaraman ii. Mr. A. Gnanappan Roll No 4258 iii. Mr S. Lawrence iv. Shri T.S.Raghavan- Diciplinary authority who issued order of susupension. v. Mr.t.Ramanathan - I.A. vi. Mr.K.B.Santhannam - P.O vii. Shri N. Ramasamy - Then DGM served Terminator order viii. Shri A.L.chandra mouli - Then G.M, Appellate authority, Confirm the order of D.A. ix. Shri R.V Sharsti - E.D, Then review authority who confirmed the order of A.A x. Shri G. Narayanamoorthy - G.M.(vigilance) who filed counter affidavit
4. The copy of reports submitted by the presenting officer Mr.K.B.Santhanam and by Mr.T.Ramanathan-inquiry authority for all other 8 managers for the branches Tiruppullani, keelakarai & Thangachimadam branches.
5. The copies of the investigation report submitted by CBI and State Police Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
1. Hon'ble CIC, while disposing your application dated 30 jan 2009 requested the CPIO for copies of a no of document relating to various loan cases, has opted to the supply of information through the alternative mode of inspection restricted to those documents which the bank has not yet furnished provide these loan cases has been adduced by the disciplinary authority in support of the charge sheet issued against, in order to meet the information request on such voluminous details, pertaining to a period dating back to more than 25 years and repeatedly on the same issue, without any public interest which was fully in line with the sec 7(9) of the RTI act.
2. In compliance with Hon'ble CIC order CIC/SM/A/2009001440 dated 30/06/2010, CPIO has arranged for personal inspection of all the relevant document as above one pertaining to a period dating back to more than 25 years, available and held in possession of Thirupullani, Thangachimadan and kilakkarai branches vide our communication dated 19.07.2010.
3. According during 6th and 12th august 2010 at Kilakarai Branch, 7th july 2010 at Thangachimadam branch and during 4th and 13th August 2010 you have inspected all the relevant document as above 1 in compliance with various decision of Hon'ble CIC. After inspection of files records and documents you were supplied with copies with all the available records against your acknowledgment.
4. Now you have sought the information of copies of charge sheets issued to various mangers and related detail under RTI Act vide you petition dated 02-08-2011 received by this office on 06-09-2011.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA - "The appellant is more inclined to file no of RTI application with multiple and diverse queries repeatedly on the settlement of issue regarding disciplinary action initiated by the bank against him in the guise of seeking information There is no merit in filling innumerable application under RTI Act 2005" The appeal stands Disposed Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. M.Muthukrishnan on video conference from NIC-Dindigul Studio; Respondent: Mr. A. K. Mohanthy, AGM on behalf of Mr. V. C. Ramchandranan Public Information Officer & DGM on video conference from NIC-Chennai Studio; The PIO has denied information about the proceedings and investigations against certain Bank officers claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Under Section 8 (1) (j) information which has been exempted is defined as:Page 2 of 4
"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:" To qualify for this exemption the information must satisfy the following criteria:
1. It must be personal information.
Words in a law should normally be given the meanings given in common language. In common language we would ascribe the adjective 'personal' to an attribute which applies to an individual and not to an Institution or a Corporate. From this it flows that 'personal' cannot be related to Institutions, organisations or corporates. Hence Section 8 (1) (j) cannot be applied when the information concerns institutions, organisations or corporates. The phrase 'disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest' means that the information must have been given in the course of a Public activity.
Various Public authorities in performing their functions routinely ask for 'personal' information from Citizens, and this is clearly a public activity. When a person applies for a job, or gives information about himself to a Public authority as an employee, or asks for a permission, licence or authorisation, all these are public activities. Also when a Citizen provides information in discharge of a statutory obligation this too is a public activity.
We can also look at this from another aspect. The State has no right to invade the privacy of an individual. There are some extraordinary situations where the State may be allowed to invade the privacy of a Citizen. In those circumstances special provisions of the law apply;- usually with certain safeguards. Therefore where the State routinely obtains information from Citizens, this information is in relationship to a public activity and will not be an intrusion on privacy.
Certain human rights such as liberty, freedom of expression or right to life are universal and therefore would apply uniformly to all human beings worldwide. However, the concept of 'privacy' is a cultural notion, related to social norms, and different societies would look at these differently. Therefore referring to the UK Data protection act or the laws of other countries to define 'privacy' cannot be considered a valid exercise to constrain the Citizen's fundamental Right to Information in India. Parliament has not codified the right to privacy so far, hence in balancing the Right to Information of Citizens and the individual's Right to Privacy the Citizen's Right to Information would be given greater weightage.
Parliament intended that PIOs should use this exemption very rarely and narrowly. However, it realized that there may be a temptation by PIOs to use it very widely, and hence it added a proviso as a test for PIOs to this exemption stating, 'Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.' Public servants have been used to giving information to Parliament and State Legislatures, and it would be very rarely that there would be reluctance in parting with any information when a Parliamentary question is asked. By this proviso, Parliament recognized the primacy to the individual citizen, who lends it legitimacy. Besides it wanted all PIOs to be aware that Parliament itself derives its legitimacy from the citizen who is therefore entitled to the same information.
The Commission asked the PIO if he would deny this information to the Parliament or Legislature. He states that he would not deny this information to Parliament or Legislature. In view of this the Commission does not uphold the exemption claimed by the PIO under Section 8(1)(j).
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information regarding the investigation reports and final reports of the inquiry officers to the Appellant before 10 July 2012. This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner Page 3 of 4 14 June 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (AP) Page 4 of 4