Central Information Commission
Roshni Joshi vs United Commercial Bank (Uco) on 31 March, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/UCOBK/A/2020/672399
Roshni Joshi ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
UCO Bank, RTI Cell, Mumbai
Zonal Office, UCO Bank
Building, 1st Floor, 359 D.N.
Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001,
Maharashtra. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 09/01/2023
Date of Decision : 24/03/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16/03/2020
CPIO replied on : 15/04/2020
First appeal filed on : 19/04/2020
First Appellate Authority's order : 12/05/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.03.2020 seeking the following information:1
"Please provide me with the video recording of the following mentioned branches where I worked
1. Wadala Branch Mumbai for the period of 01.02.2019 to 30.05.2019
2. Service Branch Mumbai for the period of 01.09.2019 to 31.12.2019
3. Nerul Branch Mumbai for the period of 01.11.2019 to 29.02.2020.
Please also provide me with the punishment for misuse of such video recording other than official purpose.
As the recording has already been asked frequently but has not been provided to me till now, I have to seek the same through RTI. Be assured of use of recording for the official purpose only and misuse of it will attract severe punishment."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 15.04.2020 stating as under:-
"With regard to your request for information for CCTV-recording of Wadala Branch for the period of 01.02.20219 to 30.05.2019, please be advised that CCTV- recording of Wadala Branch for the period 01/02/2019 to 30/05/2019 is not available.
Further, with regard to your request for information for CCTV-recording of Service Branch for the period 01.09.2019 to 31.12.2019, please be advised that the relevant hard-disk has been seized by police authorities. With regard to your request for information for CCTV-recording of Nerul Branch for the period 01.11.2019 to 29.02.2020 please be advised that through the recording for the period 04.11.2019 to 29.02.2020 is available, we are not in a position to consider your request for information as the same is vague and lacks clarification as to what is being sought. Therefore, in absence of any specific reference as weIl as specific time-frame and in view of Section8(1)(h) of RTI Act 2005 it is not possible to consider your request for information."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.04.2020. FAA's order dated 12.05.2020, upheld the reply of CPIO stating as under:
"...you mentioned in your RTI Appeal that CCTV-footage should have been given as soft-copy of the same remains stored in the device. Please be advised that the CPIO has, while disposing of this request stated that the '...relevant hard-disk had been seized by police authorities...1 As such, in absence of the very information itself, there is no fault with the manner of disposal of your request for CCTV-footage of Service Branch.2
Further, in your First RTI Appeal dated 19-Apr-2020, you have, while disputing the disposal of your request for CCTV-footage of Nerul Branch, mentioned no grounds to challenge the disposal of your request by the CPIO who stated that though the CCTV-footage for the period 04-11-2019 to 29-02-2020 was available, he was not in a position to consider your request for information as he found it vague and lacking clarity as to what was being sought. The CPIO also mentioned that the available information was exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1) (h) of RT1 Act-2005. In your First RTI Appeal, you have not given any grounds as to how the said disposal by the CPIO is erroneous. It is stated in your Appeal that you are a victim of criminal case and charge-sheet has been filed against certain officers. There are more than one camera installed in Nerul Branch and footage of all the cameras cannot be shared with you unless any specific camera or area or a particular time frame is mentioned. The CPIO has clarified that because more than one CCTV- cameras are installed in the branch premises and the CCTV-recording, whatever was available, was very voluminous, he proceeded with the disposal of your request by observing that in absence of any specific reference to camera or cameras installed in such Branch, as well as specific time-frame, it was not possible to consider your request for information, Considering your RTI Application, its disposal by CPIO and your First RTI Appeal, I am of the view that considering the amount of information available and the vague nature of your request for information, the CPIO has rightly disposed your request for CCTV- footage of Nerul Branch.
Additionally, CCTV cameras are installed in Branches for internal security reasons/electronic surveillance of trade secrets placed at sensitive locations and sharing of the same under RTI Act may cause security threat to the functioning of the Bank and as such this information is exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act.
Also, the disclosure of CCTV footage would endanger the lives of Bank-employees working in the concerned branches and as such this is exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal stating as under:
"With regards to point number 2, under RTI Application UCOBK/R/E/20/00144, CCTV footage of Service BRANCH for the period of 01.09.2019 to 31.12.2019, external hard drive has been prepared while hard Disk of CCTV camera is always available within the custody of security officer, zonal office Mumbai and not the branch head. Hard drive of CCTV camera was copied in 3 order to provide the same to police authorities through zonal office, security officer only. False excuses are being given in the name of BRANCH head, Service BRANCH as Zonal Manager , ZO MUMBAI is one of the culprits and doesn't want misdeeds of culprits to be exposed. It is an willful attempt by CPIO to malafidely hide the evidence in order to patronage culprits. Moreover, inspite of my repeated claim of Zonal Manager, ZO MUMBAI, Harmohan Arora must not be acting as First Appellate Authority, as he being one of the culprits in my case of Sexual assault and criminal Conspiracy. I have also blown whistle against his full fledged Corruption. Though he has been deliberately authorised to act as First Appellate Authority, in order to keep every information in hush hush. Moreover, the place of Service BRANCH, of which footage is sought, is a place where crime of sexual Harassment has occurred and is extremely vital to substantiate my case. in accordance with point no 2, CCTV footage of Service Branch and point no 3, footage of Nerul BRANCH for the period of 01.11.2019 to 29.03.2020, are the records being a record available in the electronic form, CCTV footage falls under the definition of information under section 2(f) of RTI ACT. The purpose of installing CCTV cameras must to ensure surveillance so as to keep a vigil on anti social elements and illicit happenings. to check crime and facilitate quick response during emergency. It must not be constrained to bank's internal usage. It is ought to be for detection of all types of crimes such as robbery, fraud, sexual advances, criminal Conspiracy and others. These are related to maintainace of law and order. the intention of installation is of preventing crime, detecting offences, improving the response to emergencies, assisting in the management of places and reducing public fear of crime. This also consist of crime committed by bank's own employees and must not be restricted to crimes committed from outside. As crime has already occurred in my case and criminal case has been lodged against accused, it can assist provide evidence in case crimes do occur and help law enforcement agencies. Seeker of the RTI, I being the employee of the bank and has been victimised of Sexual assault and criminal Conspiracy in Nerul BRANCH, which was pre planned by Zonal Manager HARMOHAN K Arora. I was brutally harrassed over there after being forcefully transferred there due to lodgement of FIR against Sexual advances. I was being harassed to death at Nerul BRANCH, of which CCTV footage is being asked. After going through henious torture by my manager for arround 15 days, within short span of serving20 days in the branch, Fake small frivolous customer Complaint was created against me with Direct involvement of sexual assault accused Vishal sakharkar and HARMOHAN ARORA. I was SUSPENDED on the basis of fabricated customer Complaint in the very branch Nerul. I already have lodged another FIR against the customer and staff involved in the said matter. The said CCTV footage pertains to victim herself. It is plausible 4 that the information sought under point no 1 of RTI stands squarely covered by the exemption clause 8(1) (j) & (h) would in no manner attract the exception under section 8(1) (d) of RTI ACT on the grounds of being classified as security threats and endangering lives of bank employees as CPIO has failed to illustrate the grounds of possible threat. The footage which is being asked for, neither covers sensitive area such as cash counter nor strong room. I seek for the Recording of main hall where all malpractices of their misdeeds were happening, which is not going to expose any threat to bank. This obliterate possibly of any threat. Moreover, When the life and Liberty of bank's own employee is endangered due to Sexual advances and criminal Conspiracy by higher ups, it is empirical evidence which can substantiate the Criminal case. The incident has put my individual safety and Liberty at stake. Therefore exemption under section 8(1)(d) must not be read in restrictive manner but in a practical manner so as to preserve larger public interest to ensure surveillance with any unlawful activities. I have got right to know about secret decision based on incident occurred in Nerul BRANCH that endangered my life, employment and livelihood. CPIO wide order dated 06.05.2020 has failed to mention trade secret, commercial confidence or intellectual property, which is a pre condition for claiming exemption under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. CPIO has failed to explain how the information sought will cause security threats or compromise interests of employees working in particular branch, as the seeker of the information is one of the employees of the same branch who has made FIR against other employees of same branch for their illicit involvement in sexual advances and criminal Conspiracy. Contrary to this, disclosure of such data would allow for scrutiny of criminal case lodged against public authority, therefore provision of data is desirable in broader public interest. CCTV footage has been malafidely withheld by invoking section 8(1) (d) of RTI in order to cover up the misdeeds of higher ups. The documentary evidence against accused persons has been deliberately made to disappear it. Extensive surveillance which has become absolute necessity for effective administration and maintenance of law and order in the organisation, the same is key evidence, and can surface entry and exit route by the offenders serve as emphatic clincher where the accused are denying of charges. These are I see no reason where the security is violated when the security of bank's own employee is at stake. and CCTV FOOTAGE is related to maintenance of law and order and not related to security threats. It must be provided where the crime occurs. Clearly CCTV FOOTAGE can help in verifying the truthfulness of the event. The information sought will promote transparency and accountability in the working of public authority disclosure of which helps in containing and discouraging corruption enumerated in clause (b) & (c) of section 4(1) of RTI. UCO Bank being a public sector bank owes a 5 duty on part of CPIO to act in proactive manner so as to ensure accountability and ensure the victim of Sexual abuse is served justice. With reference to point no 2, FIRs were not mentioned in earlier RTI, for rest of the information, second Appeal has already been lodged as, I am being harassed extremely by higher ups and no information is being disclosed in order to safeguard Sexual assault culprits Harmohan arora, Vishal sakharkar and others. With reference to point no 3, it is ridiculous that the accused herself is not being provided a small frivolous Complaint being created against her in a complete fake manner and without serving customer Complaint copy she is being suspended on the grounds of one frivolous Complaint which she never received. These are blatant violation of principle of natural justice. This is being done by CPIO intentionally in order to save culprits. It is laughable to know the clauses which have been displayed on order to conceal customer Complaint, which was raised against information seeker herself. If this is how information is being manipulated, no one can save bank from upcoming big Corruption scams, which is a matter of great concern and puts public interest at huge stake."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: Moreshwar Khatekar, Chief Manager & CPIO present through audio conference.
The Appellant was heard at length during the course of which she desired to narrate in detail the factual background of the information sought for in the RTI Application as well as the entire timeline of the alleged sexual harassment case being pursued by her. While the Commission continued to hear her submissions, she was counselled about the scope and mandate of the RTI Act which did not warrant a threadbare analysis of the said factual background or the gamut of questions and dissatisfaction she stated to be having with the action taken by the Respondent Bank in the matter of the alleged sexual harassment. However, she burst into frenzied arguments expressing her discontent with the hearing proceedings and demanded to be heard in the manner she deemed as fit.
The CPIO reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant and emphasised on the observations made by the FAA in the order of 12.05.2020.
The hearing was concluded reserving the decision in the matter.6
Decision:
In view of the hearing proceedings, the Commission deems it fit to verbatim quote the contents of the written submissions (17 pages excluding enclosures) filed by the Appellant on 17.01.2023 (common to 9 of her Appeals that were listed for hearing in a bunch manner), of which, the factual background is being quoted only to the extent that provides a gist of the narrative, as other details bear sensitive information related to the case averred to have put forth to the Internal Complaints Committee of the Respondent Bank and other concerned competent authorities:
"1. In UCO Bank fence is eating crops! At the outset, the instant case is in respect of one malaise, "Corruption " - the cancer at the heart of so many problems that has been plaguing the Indian Banking System, particularly the Public Sector Banks. The illegal & unethical practices flourishing in UCO Bank and the relentless harassment and irreparable detriment caused, constrained me to file as many as nine appeals before the CIC. This case is a jarring example of how conscious efforts to scuttle the investigation, thereby stifling the complaints of grievous nature and brow-beating of a whistle-blower, have been made in a recurring manner, by certain top- executives of the respondent bank. Respondents allegedly abused their powers and misused their positions in harbouring one another, thereby, committing various offences, inter alia offences of perpetrating corrupt practices, criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery, using fabricated documents as genuine, and offences involving moral turpitude, liable to be punished under the various Indian laws, in order to ensure that their nefarious activities, inter alia abuse of powers, enabling of sexual harassment and perpetrating cruelties on employees of the respondent bank could go unchecked without any hindrance.
2. The instant case is a glaring example of relentless persecution of a woman employee of a Public Sector Bank, who has been taken in reprisal, thereby converting entire machinery available at disposal of respondent bank, into an instrument to harbour perpetrators & settle personal score by the means of frequent transfers, arbitrary suspensions, spoiling her career and disqualifying her from the promotion, bombarding her with plethora of forged and fabricated show- causes, reminders, notices and as many as three fabricated charge- sheets basing outright fictitious and fabricated complaints cropped up against her, illegally removing her from services of UCO Bank, hounding her with carrying out perennial and everlasting inquires thereby keeping such departmental proceedings at abeyance for an indefinite period, all this to her, only because she 7 opposed & acted against the sexual advances of a stalwart union leader of the bank and blew whistles in discharge of her duties as a banker, against corrupt practices being carried out in respondent bank.
xxx
30. The gist of aforementioned facts have been brought out succinctly in the following words: In pursuance of alleged incident of sexual harassment, Mr. Harmohan Arora, Mr. Naresh kumar & Mr. Atul Kumar Goel allegedly in complicity with the AIBOC Leaders, among other conspirators hatched a criminal conspiracy against me, thereby colluding with one another, they attempted to muzzle the complaints of grievous nature filed against them, throw me out of bank's premises, forcibly transferred and illegally suspended my service, cropped up forged and fabricated complaints, dodged my requests to provide copies of crucial pieces of evidence, and cropped up as many as three (03) bogus inquiries against me, with an ulterior motive of wielding quasi-judicial powers, as a tool for a witch- hunt and a means to ensure that a pendora's box is not opened. I was allegedly faced with gang of powerful leaders and executives, who in order favour perpetrators abused their powers recurrently, and illegally threw me out of the services, that caused me a wrongful loss to the tune of 20 lakh approx. in terms of emoluments, & also caused irreparable harm to my body, mind and reputation; that I was removed from the bank's service without passing any final Order w. r. t the inquiry proceedings conducted into the allegations of sexual harassment; that at the same, time, all the complaints alleging said top executives of the bank of having committed various corrupt activities, are pending for their disposal at UCO bank's end, and thereby suppressing material facts stated therein the said complaints, I have been illegally removed from the service, just to ensure that pendora's box is not opened. A Writ petition to this effect bearing Ref. No. 5092/2021 has been filed before the Bombay High Court."
As far as the information sought for in the RTI Application is concerned, the Commission observes that whatever clarity was lacking in the CPIO's factual reply has been adequately mitigated by the FAA by explaining the unavailability of information wherever applicable and invoking the exemptions of Section 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act along with proper reasoning.
As regards the angst of the Appellant against Harmohan Arora for having presided as the FAA in the matter, the Commission notes that in the absence of any provision in the RTI Act that allows to challenge the adjudication of the First Appeal by Harmohan Arora as the FAA in the instant matter and for the absence 8 of any malafides or deliberate denial of information evinced from the FAA's order, no action is warranted against the FAA.
Similarly, a bare perusal of the grounds of the Appellant's dissatisfaction as communicated through her appeal grounds as well as her written submissions suggest that she is questioning the merits of the action/inaction of the Respondent office against her sexual harassment complaint; merits of the suspension order issued to her and issues related thereto. None of these aspects of the case are amenable to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the RTI Act or are answerable by the CPIO within his mandate under the Act. Here, the Appellant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) Having observed as above, the Commission is not in a position to order any relief in the matter and upholds the FAA's order. For any further dissatisfaction with the 9 alleged administrative decisions taken by the Respondent Bank or the alleged inaction, the Appellant is advised to approach the appropriate forum.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 10