Central Information Commission
Mrp Kishan vs Andhra Bank on 5 February, 2016
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/003140 & CIC/VS/C/2013/000228/SH
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (18)/(19)
Date of hearing : 5th February 2016
Date of decision : 5th February 2016
Name of the Appellant / : Shri P. Kishan,
Complainant S/o. Late Shri Narayan Rao, H. No. 671,
Arya Nagar, Borgaon (P), Nizamabad,
A.P. 503287
Name of the Public : Central Public Information Officer,
Authority/Respondent Andhra Bank
Legal Department, Head Office, Dr. Pattabhi Bhawan, 5911, Saifabad, Hyderabad 500 004 RTI Application filed on : 04/03/2013 CPIO replied on : 12/04/2013 First Appeal filed on : 19/04/2013 First Appellate Authority order on : 01/10/2013 2nd Appeal received on : 17/11/2014 The Appellant / Complainant was not present.
On behalf of the Respondents, Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Manager (Law) was present at the NIC Studio, Rangareddy.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal CIC/SH/A/2014/003140 & CIC/VS/C/2013/000228/SH These files contain an appeal and a complaint concerning the RTI application dated 4.3.2013 filed by the Appellant / Complainant, seeking information on four points regarding a copy of his representation dated 8.1.2013, received by the Respondents through the Ministry of Finance, copy of a letter dated 24.1.2013 addressed by the Ministry of Finance to the Respondents, a copy of the Respondents' reply to the above letter and copies of the enquiry report dated 24.2.2011 and enquiry proceedings. The information was denied by the CPIO under Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act on the ground that the matter was under prosecution and disclosure of the requested information would impede the process of prosecution. The FAA upheld the reply of the CPIO and cited the Commission's order No. CIC/LS/A/2010/000685 dated 26.8.2011 and the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Surinder Pal Singh vs. Union of India, in favour of denial of information in this case. Not satisfied with the response of the Respondents, the Appellant / Complainant has approached the Commission in an appeal and a complaint.
2. The matter came up today. The Appellant / Complainant was not present in spite of a written notice having been sent to him. However, in his second appeal he has challenged the decision of the CPIO to invoke Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act to deny the information. He has stated that the information sought by him is not at all the subject matter of the criminal case pending against him in a court. He has also cited the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh vs. CIC, in which the Court observed that mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of information and the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process.
CIC/SH/A/2014/003140 & CIC/VS/C/2013/000228/SH
3. The Respondents submitted that the Appellant / Complainant was a Senior Manager in the bank, when he granted a Letter of Credit of Rs. 14 crores to a customer without any authority and proper procedure. A criminal case is pending against him concerning the above in a court. In response to our query, whether any disciplinary proceedings were also conducted against the Appellant / Complainant, the Respondents replied in the affirmative and stated that he was dismissed from service as a result of these disciplinary proceedings and has challenged the dismissal order in the A.P. High Court. In response to our further query, the Respondents stated that the documents sought by the Appellant / Complainant in the four points of his RTI application dated 4.3.2013 relate to the disciplinary proceedings against him and a representation made by him in the context of these proceedings.
4. We have considered the records and the submissions made before us by the Respondents. In this context, we recall our order No. CIC/SH/A/2014/0002798 dated 29.1.2016 in a similar case, where information was sought by an Appellant in the context of the disciplinary proceedings conducted against him, while a criminal proceeding was also pending against him in a court of law. We note, in particular, the following observations made by the Commission in the above order: "In the above context, we note that while the issues before the disciplinary authority and the CBI courts may pertain to the same accounts, the two proceedings are separate. The disciplinary proceedings are already over and the punishment of dismissal has been imposed on the Appellant. Therefore, in this case, there is no CIC/SH/A/2014/003140 & CIC/VS/C/2013/000228/SH ground to invoke Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. Accordingly, this matter is not on all fours with the cases cited by the Respondents. The information sought is regarding the documents pertaining to action taken on an appeal submitted by the Appellant in the course of the disciplinary proceedings, the decision of the Appellate Authority and some related issues. This information cannot be said to be information under the control of the trial courts. Further, the Respondents have also not made any submission regarding any court of law or tribunal having expressly forbidden disclosure of this information to the Appellant."
In regard to the above, we also note that no submission has been made by the Respondents in this case regarding any court of law or tribunal having expressly forbidden disclosure of the information sought by the Appellant / Complainant in the RTI application dated 4.3.2013. Further, the disciplinary proceedings are already over and there is no ground to invoke Section 8 (1) (h). Therefore, in our view, the cases cited by the FAA in his order dated 1.10.2013 are not germane to the matter before us.
5. In view of the foregoing and with reference to the appeal registered on File No. 3140, we direct the CPIO to provide the documents sought by the Appellant in his RTI application dated 4.3.2013. In doing so, the CPIO may sever / blot out reference(s), if any, in the said documents to the criminal prosecution of the Appellant in a court. The above information should be provided, free of charge, within thirty days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
CIC/SH/A/2014/003140 & CIC/VS/C/2013/000228/SH
6. In view of the foregoing, further enquiry into the complaint registered on File No. 228 is not considered necessary.
7. With the above directions and observations, the appeal and the complaint are disposed of.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SH/A/2014/003140 & CIC/VS/C/2013/000228/SH