Central Information Commission
Mrvinod Kumar Kanojia vs Allahabad Bank on 10 September, 2015
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/001638
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 10th September 2015
Date of decision : 10th September 2015
Name of the Appellant : Shri Vinod Kumar Kanojia, Advocate,
194, Gurudwara Colony,
Clement Town, Dehradun, UK
Name of the Public : Central Public Information Officer,
Authority/Respondent Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office, 1, Gandhi
Marg, Ghantaghar, Dehradun, UK248001 The Appellant was not present.
On behalf of the Respondents, Shri B. S. Negi, Senior Manager was present at the NIC Studio, Dehradun.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal This matter, pertaining to an RTI application dated 26.2.2014 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on twelve points regarding service matters concerning a lady employee of the bank, came up today. The Appellant was not present in spite of a written notice having been sent to him. The Respondents reiterated their decision to deny the information under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. It is seen that the information sought by the Appellant included details of the movable / immovable property of the employee concerned and the amount of the income tax paid by her etc. The Appellant also sought CIC/SH/A/2014/001638 the reason for not transferring the above employee and enquired as to by when she would be transferred. In the above context, we note that the CPIO is not required to offer explanations in response to RTI queries or predict future events, such as when a particular employee may be transferred. Further, we also note the following observations made by the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 3.10.2012 in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commission & Ors.: "12. The petitioner herein sought for copies of all memos, show cause notices and censure/punishment awarded to the third respondent from his employer and also details viz. movable and immovable properties and also the details of his investments, lending and borrowing from Banks and other financial institutions. Further, he has also sought for the details of gifts stated to have accepted by the third respondent, his family members and friends and relatives at the marriage of his son. The information mostly sought for finds a place in the income tax returns of the third respondent. The question that has come up for consideration is whether the abovementioned information sought for qualifies to be "personal information" as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act"
"14. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are "personal information" which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and 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."
The Appellant has not established any larger public interest, warranting disclosure of the information concerning the movable / immovable property and income tax etc. of the lady employee.
CIC/SH/A/2014/001638
3. Having considered the records and the submissions of the Respondents, we find no substance in this appeal and it is dismissed.
4. 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/2014/001638