Central Information Commission
Mrunal Kishor Wankhede vs Bank Of India on 23 April, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal Nos. (As per Annexure)
Mrunal Kishor Wankhede ... अपीलकता /Appellant /
िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Bank of India,
Nagpur, Kolhapur ... ितवादीगण/Respondent(s)
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal(s)/Complaint(s):
Sl No. Second Date of Date of Date of FA Date of Date of
Appeal RTI CPIO's FAO SA/Complaint
/Complai Application Reply
nt Nos.
1. 117685 16.12.2022 11.01.2023 19.01.2023 07.02.2023 07.04.2023
2. 117690 16.12.2022 11.01.2023 19.01.2023 07.02.2023 07.04.2023
3. 161069 09.10.2022 07.11.2022 10.11.2022 08.12.2022 26.12.2022
4. 119039 16.12.2022 17.01.2023 19.01.2023 21.02.2023 07.04.2023
5. 119040 16.12.2022 17.01.2023 19.01.2023 21.02.2023 07.04.2023
6. 119041 16.12.2022 19.01.2023 19.01.2023 21.02.2023 07.04.2023
7. 119043 09.01.2023 20.02.2023 14.02.2023 14.03.2023 07.04.2023
8. 117731 09.01.2023 20.02.2023 14.02.2023 14.03.2023 07.04.2023
9. 105023 09.11.2022 08.12.2022 16.12.2022 Not on 23.01.2023
record
10. 105024 09.11.2022 08.12.2022 16.12.2022 Not on 23.01.2023
record
11. 105025 28.11.2022 08.12.2022 16.12.2022 Not on 23.01.2023
record
12. 105026 28.11.2022 08.12.2022 16.12.2022 Not on 23.01.2023
record
Page 1 of 20
Note: The instant set of Appeals/Complaints have been clubbed for decision as these
relate to similar subject matter and largely identical CPIO replies.
Date of Hearing: 12.04.2024
Date of Decision: 22.04.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
SMT. ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Complaint No. CIC/BKOIN/C/2023/117685
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 16.12.2022 seeking information as under:
i. "Copy of Office Account statement which is used for payment of SEPOY engaged as Daily wager in the Branches of Nagpur Zone of Bank of India; in the Administrative Departments of Nagpur Zone of Bank of India and at Nagpur Zonal Office Bank Of India from 01/01/2012 to 28/11/2022, U/s Section 6(1) of the RTI Act 2005.
ii. List of Branches, Departments and Nagpur Zonal Office of Bank of India were the SUBSTAFF/CASH PEON/ANY Other such CONFIRM staff has been allotted, U/s Section 6(1) of the RTI Act 2005.
iii. Memo of the Head Office of Bank Of India regarding the engaging of such Individuals as Daily Wager in Branches, Departments and Kolhapur Zonal Office of Bank of India, U/s Section 6(1) of the RTI Act 2005. iv. Amount of Payment of all Daily Wagers who are engaged as temporary basis from 01/01/2012 to 28/11/2022, U/s Section 6(1) of the RTI Act 2005."
1.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 11.01.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-Page 2 of 20
"In reference to the above information sought by you pertaining to the Bank of India, Nagpur Zone, we wish to inform you that, said information falls under the exemptions under Sec. 8 (1) (d), (e), and (j) of RTI Act, from the discloser. The information sought by you are third party information, are in the nature of commercial confidence, arising out of fiduciary relationship and has no relationship to any public activity or interest which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. Also the information sought by you are the personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Hence, we decline to provide the information."
1.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 19.01.2023. The FAA vide order dated 07.02.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
1.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 07.04.2023.
Complaint No. CIC/BKOIN/C/2023/117690
2. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 16.12.2022 seeking information as under:
(i) "The amount Sanctioned towards all type of Travelling, Dearness, Hotel Accommodations and all such other claims/ Allowance/Reimbursement to the all Staff Officers of Nagpur Zone, Bank of India engage in/during the Inquiry Proceedings mentioned above from the very Start of Preliminary Investigation of Kolhapur Zonal Office to imposing the Award on the Staff Officer (Mrunal Kishor Wankhede) at Nagpur Zonal Office, U/s 6(1) of the RTI Act 2005.
(Kindly table the all such amount Sanctioned to the respective Staff Officers date wise in separate list and one in aggregate list).
Page 3 of 20(ii) The Number of Leaves available by all such Staff Officers of the Nagpur Zone, Bank Of India for being called in the matter of Departmental Proceedings mentioned above, U/s 6(1) of the RTI Act 2005.
(iii) All such other expenses, i.e., made for the stationary, postages and any other expense (Arranging the food for the Staff during visit to the Nagpur Zonal Office) during the matter mentioned above U/s 6(1) of the RTI Act 2005."
2.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 11.01.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"In reference to the above information sought by you pertaining to the Bank of India, Nagpur Zone, we wish to inform you that, said information falls under the exemptions under Sec. 8 (1) (d), (e), and (j) of RTI Act, from the discloser. The information sought by you are third party information, are in the nature of commercial confidence, arising out of fiduciary relationship and has no relationship to any public activity or interest which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. Also the information sought by you are the personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Hence, we decline to provide the information."
2.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 19.01.2023. The FAA vide order dated 07.02.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
2.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 07.04.2023.
Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOIN/A/2023/161069
3. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.10.2022 seeking information as under:
Page 4 of 20"The undersigned hereby request you to kindly supply the certified copies of the Information about, all Penalty Orders taken from the Nagpur Zonal Office Bank Of India against Staff Officers of Bank Of India along with the reason of such Penalty awarded to the staff officer in guilt from 01.01.2010 to 30.09.2022 u/s 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005."
3.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 07.11.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"In reference to the above information sought by you, we wish to inform you that, said information falls under the exemptions under Sec. 8 (1) (d), (e), and (j) of RTI Act, from the discloser. The information sought by you are third party information, are in the nature of commercial confidence, arising out of fiduciary relationship and has no relationship to any public activity or interest which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. Also the information sought by you are the personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Hence, we decline to provide the information."
3.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.11.2022. The FAA vide order dated 08.12.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
3.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 26.12.2022.
Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOIN/A/2023/119039
4. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.12.2022 seeking information as under:
(i) "The amount Sanctioned towards all type of Travelling, Dearness, Hotel Accommodations and all such other claims/ Allowance/Reimbursement to the all Staff Officers of Kolhapur Zone, Bank of India engage in/during the Inquiry Proceedings mentioned above from the very Start of Preliminary Investigation Page 5 of 20 of Kolhapur Zonal Office to imposing the Award on the Staff Officer (Mrunal Kishor Wankhede), U/s 6(1) of the RTI Act 2005. (Kindly table the all such amount Sanctioned to the respective Staff Officers date wise in separate list and one in aggregate list).
(ii) The Number of Leaves available by all such Staff Officers of the Kolhapur Zone, Bank Of India for being called in the matter of Departmental Proceedings mentioned above, U/s 6(1) of the RTI Act 2005.
(iii) All such other expenses, i.e., made for the stationary, postages and any other expense (Arranging the food for the Staff during visit to the Kolhapur Zonal Office) during the matter mentioned above U/s 6(1) of the RTI Act 2005."
4.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 17.01.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"In this regard, we wish to advise you that the information sought by you is in the nature of commercial confidence, arising out of fiduciary relationship and also personal information which has no relation to any public activity hence, exempted u/s 8(1)(d)(e)(j) of RTI Act, 2005."
4.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.01.2023. The FAA vide order dated 21.02.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 07.04.2023.
Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOIN/A/2023/119040
5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.12.2022 seeking information as under:
Page 6 of 20i. "Copy of the minutes of the BLCC meeting held at the Gargoti Taluka of Kolhapur District arranged by the Bank of India (Lead Bank) from January 2014 to December 2022, U/s Section 6(1) of the RTI Act 2005.
ii. Copy of Inter Office Memorandums in respect to Arrangement of all such BLCC meeting held at the Gargoti Taluka of Kolhapur District arranged by the Bank of India (Lead Bank) from January 2014 to December 2022, U/s Section 6(1) of the RTI Act 2005.
iii. Copy of the Register of the Attendance of all such participants (Branch Managers of All Banks, including Bank of India) of the BLCC meeting held at the Gargoti Taluka of Kolhapur District arranged by the Bank of India (Lead Bank) from January 2014 to December 2022, u/s Section 6(1) of the RTI Act 2005."
5.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 17.01.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"ln this regard, we wish to advise you that the information sought by you is in the nature of commercial confidence, arising out of fiduciary relationship and also personal information which has no relation to any public activity hence, exempted u/s 8(1)(d)(e)(j) of RTI Act. Further, information sought pertains to year 2014 to 2022 and collecting the same would disproportionately divert the resources of Public Authority, hence exempted u/s 7(9) of RTI Act."
5.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.01.2023. The FAA vide order dated 21.02.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
5.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 07.04.2023.
Page 7 of 20Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOIN/A/2023/119041
6. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.12.2022 seeking information as under:
"Copy of Risk Based Internal Audit reports of Patgaon Branch of Kolhapur Zone of Bank of India with compliance submitted by the Patgaon Branch of Kolhapur Zone of Bank Of India, from Financial Year ending on March 2014 to Financial Year ending on March 2022, U/s Section 6(1) of the RTI Act 2005."
6.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 19.01.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"In this regard, we wish to advise you that the information sought by you is in the nature of commercial confidence, arising out of fiduciary relationship and also personal information which has no relation to any public activity hence, exempted u/s 8(1)(d)(e)(j) of RTI Act"
6.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.01.2023. The FAA vide order dated 21.02.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
6.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 07.04.2023.
Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOIN/A/2023/119043
7. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.01.2023 seeking information on the following points:
"Certified copy of Pre-Inspection Report, Original Proposal, all Review Acknowledgment Proposals, Inspection Reports, Document (L4440) and Irregularities observed during Risk Base Audit t of the Bank of India and Compliance submitted of the Patgaon Branch on the same with the Inspection and Audit Department of Kolhapur Page 8 of 20 Zonal Office Of India AND also system generated and filled Debt Acknowledgement date of the Loan Accounts mentioned for the Following Loan Accounts tabled under :-
Sr. Account Name Account No
No.
1. Mr Mahadev Ananda Gudekar XXXXXXXXXXXX0320
2. Mr Kakaso Mahadev Chandam XXXXXXXXXXXX0321
3. Mr Govind Ramchandra Pilankar XXXXXXXXXXXX0322
4. Mr. Maruti Shankar Kenjalekar XXXXXXXXXXXX0323
5. Mr. Sagar Maruti Kenjalekar XXXXXXXXXXXX0324
..." etc.
7.1 Aggrieved with the non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a
First Appeal dated 14.02.2023. Subsequently, the CPIO replied vide letter dated 20.02.2023 and the same is reproduced as under
"In this regard, we wish to advise you that the information sought by you is in the nature of commercial confidence, arising out of fiduciary relationship and also personal information which has no relation to any public activity hence, exempted u/s 8(1)(d)(e)(j) of RTI Act"
7.2 The FAA vide order dated 14.03.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
7.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 07.04.2023.
Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOIN/A/2023/117731
8. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.01.2023 seeking information as under:
i. "Certified copy of Patgaon Branch Attendance Register of the Kolhapur Zone of the Bank of India for all staff members of the same Branch from 01/01/2010 to 31/12/2022, Under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act 2005.Page 9 of 20
ii. All Handing over and Taking Over reports of the Patgaon Branch submitted with the Kolhapur Zonal office of Bank of India from 01/01/2010 to 31/12/2022, Under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act 2005."
8.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 20.02.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"In this regard, we wish to advise you that the information sought by you is in the nature of commercial confidence, arising out of fiduciary relationship and also personal information which has no relation to any public activity hence, exempted u/s 8(1)(d)(e)(j) of RTI Act"
8.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.02.2023. The FAA vide order dated 14.03.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
8.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 07.04.2023.
Complaint No. CIC/BKOIN/C/2023/105023
9. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.11.2022 seeking information as under:
"All Monthly Report submitted by the Inquiry Officer-Mr Surender Singh Kamal to the General Manager CVC and Disciplinary Authority of Kolhapur Zonal Office in respect to the Departmental Enquiry Proceedings of Mr Mrunal Kishor Wankhede in the Matter of Patgaon Branch, referring the AOC dated 25/03/2021 ref: KZO/HR/IR- KOL104/20-21/281-U/s 6(1) of the RTI Act 2005."
9.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 08.12.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Page 10 of 20"It is observed that you have been constantly filling applications one after another and always seeking similar kind of information which we had already rejected vide our various replies and in our opinion, it is a sheer misuse of RTI Act, 2005. ln this regard, we would like to refer the Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in "Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Anr wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has rightly held that indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter -productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. We would also refer Central information Commission Decision passed in "Satish Tiwari v I.O.C.L" wherein Hon'ble CIC held that it is indeed very unfortunate that a large number of persons who themselves are not so clean in so far as their conduct and behavior, including economic integrity is concerned and it is they who have been misusing the provisions of the RTI Act for promotion of personal interest at the heavy cost of public expenditure which are incurred in processing the RTI applications."
9.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 16.12.2022.
9.3. Subsequently, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 23.01.2023.
Complaint No. CIC/BKOIN/C/2023/105024
10. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.11.2022 seeking information as under:
i. "The Letter Ref: KZO IR:P:20. dated 15/03/2018 from Zonal Manager of Kolhapur Zone to the General Manager of NBG West-II Pune of Bank Of India in case of Patgaon matter in respect to the EX-STAFF OFFICER Mr Mrunal Kishor Wankhede, 178030, u/s Section 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005.Page 11 of 20
ii. The Preliminary Investigation report of Mr Sanjay Gajman Pandit (retired) in case of Patgaon matter in respect to the EX- STALE OFFICER Mr Mrunal Kishor Wankhede, 1-Sozo, u/s Section 6(1) of the RTI Act 2005."
10.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 08.12.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"It is observed that you have been constantly filling in applications one after another and always seeking similar kind of information which we had already rejected vide our various replies and in our opinion, it is a sheer misuse of RTI Act, 2005. ln this regard, we would like to refer the Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in "Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Anr wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has rightly held that indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter -productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. We would also refer Central information Commission Decision passed in "Satish Tiwari v I.O.C.L" wherein Hon'ble CIC held that it is indeed very unfortunate that a large number of persons who themselves are not so clean in so far as their conduct and behavior, including economic integrity is concerned and it is they who have been misusing the provisions of the RTI Act for promotion of personal interest at the heavy cost of public expenditure which are incurred in processing the RTI applications."
10.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 16.12.2022.
10.3. Subsequently, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 23.01.2023.
Page 12 of 20Complaint No. CIC/BKOIN/C/2023/105025
11. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 28.11.2022 seeking information as under:
i. "RC Book and LOG Book of all Vehicles which owe by the Kolhapur Zonal Office and Branches of Kolhapur Zonal Office of Bank Of India, from 01/01/2010 to 31/10/2022, u/s Section 6(1) of the RTI Act 2005.
ii. FUEL Expended and Bills of all such Vehicles owe by the Kolhapur Zonal Office and Branches of Kolhapur Zonal Office of Bank of India, from 01/01/2010 to 31/10/2022, u/s Section 6(1) of the RTI Act 2005.
iii. Bill of Repair or Purchase of all such Vehicles owe by the Kolhapur Zonal Office and Branches of Kolhapur Zonal Office of Bank of India from 01/01/2010 to 31/10/2022, u/s Section 6(1) of the RTI Act 2005. (The Information requested is enlisted and adhere to the Section 4(0) (0), Section 4(b)(i)(xi)(xii) of the said Act)."
11.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 08.12.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"It is observed that you have been constantly filling in applications one after another and always seeking a similar kind of information which we had already rejected vide our various replies and in our opinion, it is a sheer misuse of RTI Act, 2005. ln this regard, we would like to refer the Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in "Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Anr wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has rightly held that indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter -productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. We would also refer Central Page 13 of 20 information Commission Decision passed in "Satish Tiwari v I.O.C.L" wherein Hon'ble CIC held that it is indeed very unfortunate that a large number of persons who themselves are not so clean in so far as their conduct and behavior, including economic integrity is concerned and it is they who have been misusing the provisions of the RTI Act for promotion of personal interest at the heavy cost of public expenditure which are incurred in processing the RTI applications."
11.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 16.12.2022.
11.3. Subsequently, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 23.01.2023.
Complaint No. CIC/BKOIN/C/2023/105026
12. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 28.11.2022 seeking information as under:
i. "Copy of Office Account statement which is used for payment of SEPOY engaged as Daily wager in the Branches of Kolhapur Zone of Bank of India; in the Administrative Departments of Kolhapur Zone of Bank of India and at Kolhapur Zonal Office Bank of India from 01/01/2012 to 28/11/2022, U/s Section 6(1) of the RTI Act 2005.
ii. List of Branches, Departments and Kolhapur Zonal Office of Bank of India were the SUBSTAFF/CASH PEON/ANY Other such CONFIRM staff has been allotted, U/s Section 6(1) of the RTI Act 2005.
iii. Memo of the Head Office of Bank of India regarding the engaging of such Individuals as Daily Wager in Branches, Departments and Kolhapur Zonal Office of Bank of India, U/s Section 6(1) of the RTI Act 2005.
iv. Amount of Payment of all Daily Wagers who are engaged as temporary basis from 01/01/2012 to 28/11/2022, U/s Section 6(1) of the RTI Act 2005."Page 14 of 20
12.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 08.12.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"It is observed that you have been constantly filling in applications one after another and always seeking a similar kind of information which we had already rejected vide our various replies and in our opinion, it is a sheer misuse of RTI Act, 2005. ln this regard, we would like to refer the Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in "Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Anr wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has rightly held that indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter -productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. We would also refer Central information Commission Decision passed in "Satish Tiwari v I.O.C.L" wherein Hon'ble CIC held that it is indeed very unfortunate that a large number of persons who themselves are not so clean in so far as their conduct and behavior, including economic integrity is concerned and it is they who have been misusing the provisions of the RTI Act for promotion of personal interest at the heavy cost of public expenditure which are incurred in processing the RTI applications."
12.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 16.12.2022.
12.3. Subsequently, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 23.01.2023.
Hearing Proceedings & Decision
13. The Appellant/Complainant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Gyan Ranjan Das, DGM & CPIO along Page 15 of 20 with Ashish Thade, Legal Officer, Nagpur and Vaishnavi Ramteke, Chief Manager & Rep. of CPIO, Kolhapur attended the hearing through video conference.
14. The Appellant at the outset, upon calling out the matters, urged to know the facts of the initial case viz. CIC/BKOIN/C/2023/117685 stating that he has not received the notice of hearing for the said case and requested to know of the details. The Commission facilitated the Appellant by reading out the contents of the respective RTI Application, at which point he argued that the denial of the information related to the payment of wages is not arbitrary as it relates to payments made to public posts from the government exchequer and is a key to ensure that payments are made as per the Minimum Wages Act. Subsequently, as the next case was called out, the Appellant reiterated that he is not aware of the case facts and urged if the same can be read out to him, upon being questioned as to why he is not prepared for the matter(s), the Appellant stated that he was occupied with preparations of some exam and could not get the time to read the cases. At this point, the Commission took exception to the Appellant's approach as more than a dozen of his cases were listed for hearing and yet he did not bother to acquaint himself with the facts of any case and even sought to seemingly mislead the bench by claiming non-receipt of one of the hearing notices. Eventually, at the behest of the Commission, the Appellant stated that his grounds of second appeal and other material on record may be considered for deciding the cases. Subsequently, when the Respondent(s) were being heard in a case-to-case manner, whereby, largely, the replies available on record denying all third-party related information under Section 8(1)(d), 8(1)(e) & (j) of the RTI Act was emphasized, the Appellant sought to make certain specific submissions viz. in File No. CIC/BKOIN/A/2023/119040, it was argued that the claim that there will be a disproportionate diversion of resources is not correct as he has sought for the details restricted to Patgaon branch and contains merely 2 page of attendance register. In File No. CIC/BKOIN/A/2023/119041, it was argued that the Risk Assessment reports cannot be exempted from disclosure to him as he was departmentally proceeded against based on these audit reports only. Similarly, in File No. File No. CIC/BKOIN/A/2023/119043, it was argued that the inspection reports and documents related to the 42 reports were Page 16 of 20 prepared by himself during his tenure at the bank and hence access to the same cannot be denied to him.
15. The Respondent(s) in addition to reiterating the denial of the information under the averred exemption clauses of the RTI Act as well as highlighting the enormity of the information desired by the Appellant in File Nos. CIC/BKOIN/C/2023/105023 + 105024 + 105025 + 105026, pointed out the persistent filing of RTI Applications by the Appellant and the futility of providing any information as earlier about 9000 copies of documents related to similar RTI queries were sent to the Appellant, which he refused to receive. The Appellant interjected to wholly deny the said allegation.
16. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the Appellant has concededly sought for myriad records spanning across a decade or more, relating to the personal information of third parties and the Respondent(s) have appropriately replied to each of these RTI Application(s) as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, having considered the multiple appeal(s) on record as well as the nature of the information sought for through these matters, the Commission does not find it expedient to call into question the reply provided by the CPIO in File Nos. CIC/BKOIN/C/2023/105023 + 105024 + 105025 + 105026. The premise of the Appellant that he ought to be provided with payment related information of third parties; inspection reports of various loan accounts; attendance registers etc. as he was also employed with the Bank and may have been one of the record creators himself does not entail any such absolute right to access information of third parties under the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner &
Page 17 of 20Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC
794. The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
17. Having observed as above, the Commission finds the instant appeal(s) and complaint(s) bereft of merit. The Appellant/Complainant is also strongly advised to exercise is right to information judiciously in the future.
18. The Appeal(s) & Complaint(s) are dismissed accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म)
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 22.04.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Page 18 of 20
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, RTI Cell,
Bank of India,
Zonal Office (Nagpur)
3rd Floor, S.V. Patel Road.
Kingsway, Distt - Nagpur,
MH - 400001
2. The CPIO, RTI Cell
Bank of India, Zonal Office: Kolhapur
2nd Floor, 1519- C, Jaydhaval Building
Laxmipuri, Distt - Kolhapur, MH - 416002
3. Mrunal Kishor Wankhede
Annexure of Complaints & Second Appeal Nos.
Page 19 of 20
1. CIC/BKOIN/C/2023/117685
2. CIC/BKOIN/C/2023/117690
3. CIC/BKOIN/A/2023/161069
4. CIC/BKOIN/A/2023/119039
5. CIC/BKOIN/A/2023/119040
6. CIC/BKOIN/A/2023/119041
7. CIC/BKOIN/A/2023/119043
8. CIC/BKOIN/A/2023/117731
9. CIC/BKOIN/C/2023/105023
10. CIC/BKOIN/C/2023/105024
11. CIC/BKOIN/C/2023/105025
12. CIC/BKOIN/C/2023/105026
Page 20 of 20
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)