Central Information Commission
Mrjaspaul Singh Kochar vs Indian Overseas Bank on 24 June, 2016
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/000738
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 24th June 2016
Date of decision : 24th June 2016
Name of the Appellant : Shri Jaspaul Singh Kochar,
A2/152, 2nd Floor, Janak Puri,
New Delhi 110058
Name of the Public : Central Public Information Officer,
Authority/Respondent Indian Overseas Bank,
Central Office: P. B. No. 3765, 763,
Anna Salai, Chennai 600002
RTI Application filed on : 09/10/2014
CPIO replied on : 10/11/2014
First Appeal filed on : 02/12/2014
First Appellate Authority order on : 29/12/2014
2nd Appeal received on : 24/02/2015
The Appellant was represented by Shri S. N. Kackar, who was present in person
with an authorization letter from the Appellant.
On behalf of the Respondents, Shri P. Madhavan, CPIO was present at the NIC
Studio, Chennai.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal
CIC/SH/A/2015/000738
Information sought
This matter concerns an RTI application filed by the Appellant, seeking information on five points regarding the credit facilities sanctioned by the Respondent Bank to M/s Century Communications Ltd., investigation conducted by the Central Office/ Vigilance Department concerning the account and action taken against the bank officials concerned.
The CPIO reply The CPIO denied the information under section 8 (1) (d), (e), (g), (h) & (j) of the RTI Act. Grounds of the First Appeal Not satisfied with the CPIO's reply.
Order of the First Appellate Authority The FAA upheld the CPIO's reply.
Grounds of the Second Appeal Aggrieved with the CPIO's reply and the FAA's order.
Relevant facts emerging during the hearing, Discussion and Decision.
The representative of the Appellant stated that the Appellant, who is a retired General Manager of the Punjab & Sind Bank, is carrying out research concerning NPA CIC/SH/A/2015/000738 loans. In this context, he handed over to us a paper titled "Reassessing Management of NonPerforming Assets with special reference to RDDBFI Act (1993) and SARFEASI Act (2002)", authored by the Appellant in his capacity as GM and Head of Law and Recovery, Punjab & Sind Bank, published in RBI Legal News and Views Journal in 2009. The representative of the Appellant also submitted to us a list of fifty entities which, he claimed, would be the subject of the research being carried out by the Appellant. On being asked whether the Appellant had filed RTI applications for similar information concerning entities other than M/s Century Communications Ltd., the representative of the Appellant stated initially that the case of M/s Century Communications Ltd. was the only one being studied for his research by the Appellant. However, subsequently he added that the case of M/s Surya Vinayak Industries Ltd. (figuring at Sl. No. 7 in the above list) was also being studied by him. The representative of the Appellant questioned the decision of the Respondents to deny the information under Section 8 (1) (d) and (j) of the RTI Act. He submitted that none of the ingredients of Section 8 (1) (d) is present in this case. Further, since the information has been sought about the NPA account of a company, Section 8 (1) (j) does not apply. He also argued that the bank operates with the money entrusted by the people of India to it and public confidence in the bank would grow if they release the information of the kind sought by the Appellant. He prayed for direction to the Respondents to provide the information sought by the Appellant.
CIC/SH/A/2015/000738
2. The Respondents reiterated the decision of the CPIO to deny the information. They stated that the loan facilities given to M/s Century Communications Ltd. have become NPA and the bank has filed a case in DRT, though the company has not been declared a wilful defaulter so far. They further submitted that a CBI case is pending in the matter and disciplinary proceedings against certain officials of the bank are in progress.
3. We have considered the submissions of both the parties. The information sought in the RTI application is elaborate: nature of credit facilities sanctioned, dates and amounts of these sanctions and dates since when the accounts / facilities of M/s Century Communications Ltd. were declared NPA by the bank, information concerning the investigation conducted by the Central Office / Vigilance Department of the bank, a copy of the fact finding report submitted as a result of the investigation, copies of office notes put up by Vigilance Department to CVO / CMD for accountability fixation of officials at various levels, details of disciplinary proceedings commenced against bank officials and the nature of proceedings, type of lapses for which proceeded against etc. In general, the Commission has been in favour of disclosure of some information concerning the accounts that become NPA, involving further recovery action through DRT etc., even though a bank holds the information concerning the accounts of its customers in a fiduciary capacity, attracting the exemption provision under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI CIC/SH/A/2015/000738 Act. However, it is noted that the information sought in this case is not about NPA accounts in general, but elaborate information targeted at a particular account (M/s Century Communications Ltd.). The Appellant having authored a paper regarding management of NPA assets in 2009, while serving in the Punjab & Sind Bank, does not substantiate the claim of his representative that he is carrying out research in general on NPA accounts. This claim also sounds devoid of substance in the light of the submission of the representative of the Appellant to the effect that the account of M/s Century Communications Ltd. is perhaps the only or one of the two accounts being studied by the Appellant. Further, the information sought by the Appellant, a third party, regarding the details of investigations conducted by the bank and the disciplinary proceedings in progress is covered by Section 8 (1) (h) in that disclosure of such information to a third party could impede the process of action being taken by the bank in the matter. Moreover, as far as the information concerning disciplinary action against officials of the bank is concerned it attracts the provisions of Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act in the light of the following observations of the Supreme Court in the judgment dated 3.10.2012 in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors. [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012]: "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 CIC/SH/A/2015/000738 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." The Appellant has not established any larger public interest for disclosure of the information to him. His application targeted at a particular case and not NPA accounts in general does not amount to a matter of larger public interest.
4. In view of the foregoing, we see no ground to interfere with the decision of the Respondents to deny the information in this case.
5. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
6. 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.
CIC/SH/A/2015/000738 (Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SH/A/2015/000738