Central Information Commission
Shri.H Basavaraj vs Canara Bank on 29 December, 2011
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2011/000020
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 29 December 2011
Date of decision : 29 December 2011
Name of the Appellant : Shri H. Basavraj
S/o. Basappa, #2954/4, MCC,
B Block, 5th Cross, 5th Main,
Davangere - 4.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Canara Bank,
Strategic Planning & Development Wing,
Head Office, 112, JC Road,
Bangaluru.
The Appellant was present.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Shri S.R. Sridhar, AGM,
(ii) Shri Swaranabha Koduse, Senior Manager,
(iii) Ms. Malini, Manager
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. The Appellant was present in the Davangere studio of the NIC. The Respondents were present in the Bangalore studio. We heard both their submissions.
3. The Appellant had wanted all the details about the cases of fraud, embezzlement and losses in the bank as on 30 March 2010. The CPIO had refused to disclose the information on the ground that it was exempt under Section 8(1) (d) being in the nature of commercial confidence. The Appellate Authority had endorsed this decision of the CPIO. CIC/SM/A/2011/000020
4. During the hearing, the Respondents submitted that they did not maintain the information in the form the Appellant had sought. They further submitted that since the Appellant had not specified any time limit or office where such fraud etc might have taken place, compiling the information for the entire bank for an indefinite period ending 30 March 2010 would be an impossible task since the details about such cases were not centrally maintained. Besides, they also argued that the disclosure of the information relating to cases of fraud and embezzlement would adversely affect the reputation of the bank and might impact its competitiveness in the market. Therefore, they were of the view that such information should not be disclosed. On this, the Appellant submitted that since the bank was mandated to send reports about such cases to the RBI every year, it should be possible for the bank to provide him the desired information as on 30 March 2010, that is, the date on which such a report might have been sent.
5. After carefully considering the submissions of both the sides, we are of the view that whatever information the bank may have centrally on the subject, possibly in the form of any report they might have sent to the RBI, should be disclosed. To claim that cases of fraud and embezzlement must be kept under wraps to protect the reputation of the bank cannot be accepted as it flies in the face of practice of transparent methods which is expected of every public authority. Such cases cannot be classified as information in the nature of commercial confidence. The public has a right to know about such acts committed in the bank either by its own employees on their own or by others independently or in collusion. In fact, the disclosure of such information would alert everyone, both inside and outside of the bank, to be more watchful and prevent such acts in future.
CIC/SM/A/2011/000020
6. Therefore, we direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant within 10 working days of receiving this order a photocopy of the consolidated report/information regarding the frauds, embezzlements and losses as on 30/31 March 2010, in whatever form available.
7. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Chief 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/SM/A/2011/000020