Central Information Commission
Mrh Basavaraj vs Canara Bank on 22 May, 2014
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/001222, 1451, 2212/SH & CIC/SH/A/2014/000064 (Four Cases)
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 22nd May 2014
Date of decision : 22nd May 2014
Name of the Appellant : Shri H Basavaraj,
S/o H Basappa, # 2954/4, MCC B Block, 5th
Cross, 5th Main, Davangere577004
Name of the Public Authority : Central Public Information Officer,
Pragathi Gramin Bank,
P & D Section: Development Wing, H.O.
Sanganakal Road, Gandhinagar,
Bellary 583103
The Appellant was present at the NIC Studio, Davangere.
On behalf of the Respondents, Shri S. Vithal Rao, Chief Manager (CPIO) was
present at the NIC Studio, Bellary.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/001222
This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 26.12.2012 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on seven points regarding a 1997 promotion process. The CPIO responded on 29.1.2013, denying the information under Section 8 (1) (j). Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority on 11.2.2013. In his order dated 22.3.2013, the FAA upheld the CPIO's reply. The Appellant approached the CIC in second appeal on 26.7.2013.
File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/001451/SH
2. This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 17.10.2011 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on twenty eight points regarding his transfer from Regional Office, Davanagere to New Daroji branch. The CPIO responded on 18.11.2011. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority on 2.12.2011. The Appellant approached the CIC in second appeal on 19.8.2013. File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/002212/SH
3. This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 7.10.2012 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on eight points regarding action taken for disposal of his application dated 28.5.2012 concerning payment of stagnation increment. The CPIO responded on 9.11.2012. He provided information regarding payment of stagnation increment, but stated that the Appellant's application dated 28.5.2012 had not been received by the Respondents. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority on 22.12.2012. In his order dated 23.1.2013, the FAA upheld the CPIO's reply. The Appellant approached the CIC in second appeal on 13.6.2013. File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000064
4. This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 20.5.2013 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on three points regarding action taken on complaints against two employees of the bank. The CPIO responded on 31.5.2013 and stated that the complaints against the two officers were anonymous and the public authority had not taken cognizance of the same and no investigations were conducted. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority on 15.6.2013. In his order dated 16.7.2013, the FAA reiterated that the matter had not been investigated. The Appellant approached the CIC in second appeal on 6.11.2013. File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/001222/SH
5. The Respondents stated that the information sought by the Appellant pertained to the year 1997. Moreover, it was covered under Section 8 (1) (j). They also submitted that the Appellant was not a candidate in the promotion process in question. The Appellant stated that similar information had been provided to him under Commission's order in another case. Having considered the records and the submissions made before us, we note that the Appellant has sought information regarding some specific candidates, including their ACR grades, which is personal information. However, the CPIO is directed to provide to the Appellant a list of all the successful candidates in the promotion process in question, indicating the total marks obtained by each candidate. The CPIO is further directed to provide this information within thirty days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/001451/SH
6. The Respondents stated that many of the queries in the RTI application were in the nature of seeking clarifications. The Appellant stated that the Respondents were required to respond to all the queries based on their records. If some information was not available on the records, they should have informed him accordingly. Having considered the records and the submissions made before us, we direct the CPIO to facilitate inspection of records by the Appellant concerning his transfer from Davanagere to New Daroji. The Inspection should be facilitated within thirty days of the receipt of this order and photocopy of the pages of the inspected records, needed by the Appellant, should be given to him free of cost.
File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/002212/SH
7. The Respondents stated that the Appellant's application dated 28.5.2012 had not been received by them. However, since in his RTI application, he had mentioned the matter of payment of stagnation increment, they had provided information on the issue and the matter stood resolved. The Appellant stated that he had given his application dated 28.5.2012 to the Regional Manager, Davanagere and he had a copy of the receipt stamp of the above official. This copy is also available on the Commission's records and is enclosed. The CPIO is directed to conduct a search for the missing letter on the basis of the enclosed copy and respond to Points No. 1 to 7 of the RTI application dated 7.10.2012, within thirty days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000064
8. The Respondents reiterated that since the two complaints were anonymous, they had not investigated the same and this had been conveyed to the Appellant. The Appellant stated that he wanted a copy of the bank's investigation / disposal report regarding the complaints in question; as also the service record of the two officers, against whom the complaints were made. In the above context, we note the following observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner and Ors.: "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 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 sought by him. Accordingly, we see no ground to interfere with the decision of the Respondents in this case.
9. With the above directions and observations, the four appeals are disposed of.
10. 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