Central Information Commission
Mr.Vivek Sheel vs Bank Of Maharashtra on 4 April, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002890/16554Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002890
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Vivek Sheel.
B-188, Flat No. 1
Shalimar Garden Main,
Shahibabad, Ghaziabad - 201005, U.P.
Respondent : Mrs. Mugdha Satarkar
Public Information Officer & AGM
Bank of Maharashtra
H O Lokmangal,
1501, Shivajinagar, Pune - 411005.
RTI application filed on : 18-04-2011
PIO replied on : 27-05-2011
First Appeal filed on : 24-05-2011
First Appellate Authority order of : 20-06-2011
Second Appeal received on : 12-10-2011
Information sought: the appellant asked regarding the vigilance case no. F-833 which appeared in Annual Report of CVO of Bank of Maharashtra for year 2009.
(i) Whether this case was registered for any one series of incidence or more than one incidence of different nature occurred in different time period. Please provide the details, such as name of the branch in which incidence/s occurred, date/period of occurrence of incidence/s, details of reporting of incidence/s to vigilance department, and amount of Loss incurred by the bank In each of the incidences.
(ii) Incidence/s of information (i), which incidence/s classified as fraud?
(iii) Whether the incidence/s of this case reported to RBI, if yes, please provide the date of reporting anlogwith copy a all such report/s submitted to RBI.
(iv) Whether FIR Lodged for incidence/s of this case, if yes please provide incidence-wise details, such as, date of FIR, FIR No., name of police station, person/s named in the FIR.
(v) Please inform name of all the employees suspended In this case and provide Incidence-wise name of employees and nature of charges against them.
(vi) Please inform name of all the employees issued show-cause notice In this case with specific reference of each incidence of this case.
(vii) Please inform name of all the employees issued charge sheet in this case and provide the details, such as, name of employees, nature of charges (such as procedure Lapses, negligence in duty and/or direct involvement in the incidence) against them & each charge relates to which incidence/s. The Point no. viii and ix are not readable.
(x) What is the present position of this case; whether it is closed or not? If not closed, please give Incidence-wise details of present status.
(xl) If the status of this case is closed, please provide the copy of investigation reports for alt the investigation done in this case.
(xli) Whether any amount is recovered in this case, if yes, please provide the details of amount a source of recovery.
Page 1 of 5(xiii) Whether any employee suspended in this case had furnished any Fixed Deposit before revocation of suspension? If yes, what is the name of that employee and whether any recovery has been made from that fixed deposit to make good the loss incurred by the bank in this case? If no recovery has been made, then what Is status of that fixed deposit as on date?
The PIO's reply:
In this regard, we would like to inform you that information sought by you in respect of vigilance Case No: F-833 relates to the personal information and bank account of another person, disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. Moreover the information sought by you is of confidential in nature. Hence we cannot provide the information sought by you. Copies of the statements made by a copy of inquiry report following officials in the present of Grounds for the First Appeal:
The appellant was not satisfied with the PIO reply.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
"In this regard, we would like to inform you that information sought by you in respect of vigilance Case No: F-833 relates to the personal information and bank account of another person, disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. Moreover the information sought by you is of confidential in nature. Hence we cannot provide the information sought by you".
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The appellant was not satisfied with the PIO and FAA order.
Relevant Facts emerging during the hearing held on 23/12/2011: The following were present Appellant: Mr. Pran Anand representing Mr Vivek Sheel;
Respondent: Mrs. Mugdha Satarkar, Public Information Officer & AGM on video conference from NIC-Pune Studio;
"The Appellant has sought information about a vigilance case which was reported in the Annual Report of the Bank. The PIO has claimed exemption under Section 8(1)(j) on the grounds that infroamtion about other individuals would be disclosed. The PIO also states that disclosing the information would disclose the Bank accounts of some other customers of the Bank which is held in the fiduciary relationship by the Bank. The PIO also states that a Police investigation is ongoing and hence disclosing the information may affect the investigation. The information which is being sought by the Appellant is of many incidents which occurred during the period 2003 and 2005.
Under Section 8 (1) (j) information which has been exempted is defined as:
"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.
Page 2 of 5The 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. The Supreme of India has ruled that Citizens have a right to know about charges against candidates for elections as well as details of their assets, since they desire to offer themselves for public service. It is obvious then that those who are public servants cannot claim exemption from disclosure of charges against them or details of their assets. Given our dismal record of misgovernance and rampant corruption which colludes to deny Citizens their essential rights and dignity, it is in the fitness of things that the Citizen's Right to Information is given greater primacy with regard to privacy.
Therefore we can state that disclosure of information such as assets of a Public servant, -which is routinely collected by the Public authority and routinely provided by the Public servants,- cannot be construed as an invasion on the privacy of an individual. There will only be a few exceptions to this rule which might relate to information which is obtained by a Public authority while using extraordinary powers such as in the case of a raid or phone tapping.
The Commission does not accept the plea that the information sought by the Appellant can be considered as an intrusion of the privacy of an individual. Hence the Commission does not accept the plea of exemption under Section 8(1)(j).
The PIO has also not been able to show or justify how revealing the information could impede the process of investigation. From her own admission the incidents occurred in 2003 and 2005 and if an investigation is carried on for decades this cannot be a ground to refuse the information. The Commission therefore does not accept the claim for exemption under Section 8(1)(h).
As regards the claim of the PIO that information also refers to certain bank accounts of customers the Commission accepts the argument that this information held in fiduciary capacity and hence is exempt under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. The Commission therefore directs that information relating to the Bank Customer's accounts names and amounts may be severed as per the provisions of Section-10 of the RTI Act."
Page 3 of 5Decision dated 23/12/2011:
The Appeal was allowed.
"The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed above to the Appellant after severing the account numbers and names of bank customers, before 10 January 2012."
Facts leading to showcause hearing on 04/04/2012:
The Commission received a representation from Mr. B.K. Piparaiya, G.M. (Credit & IB & Alternate of G.M. Planning & CPIO) again claiming exemption U/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act requesting for reconsideration of the Commission's order dated 23/12/2011. Subsequently the Commission received a letter dated 25/01/2012 from the Appellant alleging non-compliance of the Commission's order dated 23/12/2011.
Therefore, the Commission decided to schedule a hearing in this matter on 04/04/2012 at 12:30 p.m. The Commission issued a notice dated 23/02/2012 directing the PIO Mrs. Mugdha Satarkar and Mr. B.K. Piparaiya, G.M. (Credit & IB & Alternate of G.M. Planning & CPIO) to present themselves before the Commission on 04/04/2012 at 12.30 pm along with their written explanations to show cause why penalty should not be imposed and disciplinary action not be recommended against them for defying the orders of the commission and failing to comply with the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. If there are other persons responsible for this non-compliance of the Commission's order, you may direct such person to appear before the Commission along with you.
Relevant facts emerging during the showcause hearing on 04/04/2012:
The following were present:
Respondent: Mrs. Mugdha Satarkar, AGM (Vig.) and Mr. B.K. Piparaiya, G.M.;
The Commission's order was given to Mrs. Mugdha Satarkar, PIO. She is AGM(Vigilance) and she states that she had to collect the information from various departments to provide it. The Commission had ordered on 23/12/2011 to provide the information before 10/01/2012. The PIO Mrs. Mugdha Satarkar was present when the Commission gave its order and she had made no representation that the time given was inadequate. It is clear that it was assumed that the order need not be implemented and hence a letter was sent on 10/01/2012 by General Manager (Credit & IB) Mr. B.K. Piparaiya asking the Commission to review its earlier decision and giving reasons why the Commission's order should not be obeyed. Once a statutory order is given all citizens have to obey or obtain a stay on such order by the manner prescribed in law. The order of the Commission is a statutory order and the only relief available is a writ before the appropriate forum. Mrs. Mugdha Satarkar, PIO states that the information was sent to the Appellant now on 20/03/2012. She has sent written submissions to the Commission on 26/03/2012 explaining that the information had been sent to the Appellant and requesting the Commission to condone the delay. The Commission does not consider defiance of its orders as a legitimate exercise by a PIO. By sending a letter to the Commission asking for review the PIO cannot escape the consequences of not following its order. It is evident that the information was sent only after receiving the showcause notice of the Commission which was sent on 23/02/2012.
The information should have been provided to the Appellant as per the order of the Commission before 10/01/2012. Instead it was provided to the Appellant only on 20/03/2012 i.e. after a delay of 68 days. Since no reasonable cause has been offered for the delay of 68 days in providing the information to the Appellant as per the order of the Commission, the Commission is imposing the penalty on Mrs. Mugdha Satarkar, PIO & AGM(Vig.) under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act at the rate of `250/- per day of delay i.e. `250 X 68 days = `17000/-Page 4 of 5
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a fit case for levying penalty on Mrs. Mugdha Satarkar, PIO & AGM(Vig.). Since the delay in providing the information has been of 68 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mrs. Mugdha Satarkar of `17,000/-.
The Chairman & Managing Director, Bank of Maharashtra is directed to recover the amount of `17,000/- from the salary of Mrs. Mugdha Satarkar and remit the same by a demand draft or a Banker's Cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi and send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary of the Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi - 110066. The amount may be deducted at the rate of `4250/ per month every month from the salary of Mrs. Mugdha Satarkar and remitted by the 10th of every month starting from May 2012. The total amount of `17,000/- will be remitted by 10th of August, 2012.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 04 April 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(PRE) Copies to:
1- The Chairman & Managing Director
Bank of Maharashtra
H O Lokmangal,
1501, Shivajinagar, Pune - 411005.
2. Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,
Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary
Central Information Commission,
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110066
Page 5 of 5