Central Information Commission
Dinesh Chandra Jakhmola vs State Bank Of India on 21 July, 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/SBIND/A/2022/640392 +
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/640974 +
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/645412+
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/646701+
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/646714+
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/649137
Dinesh Chandra Jakhmola .....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
State Bank Of India, RBO-5,
Dehradun, Administrative Office,
RTI Cell, 1, New Cantt Road,
Dehradun-248001, U.K. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 19/07/2023
Date of Decision : 19/07/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note - The above mentioned Appeals have been clubbed together for decision
as these are based on similar issues.
1
Relevant facts emerging from appeals:
Appeal RTI CPIO's First FAA's order Second
no. Application reply Appeal Appeal
dated dated filed on
640392 29/04/2022 19/05/2022 24/05/2022 29/06/2022 17/07/2022
640974 10/05/2022 02/07/2022 21/06/2022 16/07/2022 26/07/2022
645412 11/05/2022 02/06/2022 21/06/2022 16/07/2022 21/08/2022
646701 18/05/2022 14/06/2022 04/07/2022 10/08/2022 28/08/2022
646714 18/05/2022 14/06/2022 04/07/2022 08/08/2022 28/08/2022
649137 08/06/2022 02/07/2022 17/07/2022 24/08/2022 28/08/2022
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/640392
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.04.2022 seeking the following information:
"With due respect please provide the certified copies of the extant Bipartite Settlement/Memorandum of Settlement, and/or Banks Circular which elucidates that workman cannot do any Physical movement to another Place/City during medical leave."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 19.05.2022 stating as under:
"Medical leaves are taken by the employee on the ground that he/she is unfit to attend the official duty. Therefore, even if it has not been expressly mentioned in any service conditions or Banks circular instruction, it is implicit in leave that concerned employees cannot be found to be doing physical movement to other city and doing personal chores during medical leave unless same is for the purpose of medical situation for which he /she has availed leaves. The medical leaves are for recuperation of employee from the disease due to which he/she is unable to attend the official duty. An employee seeking medical leaves on the ground that he/she is unfit to attend the office and perform his official duties while on the other hand same employee is found to be doing physical movement, leaving city and doing personal chores on medical leave is contradictory in nature and gross misuse of medical leave benefit accorded to the employee."2
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.05.2022. FAA's order, dated 29.06.2022, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/640974 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.05.2022 seeking the following information:
"REQUEST YOU TO KINDLY PROVIDE CERTIFIED LHO DELHI LETTER NO HR/IR/JB/2333 DATED 09/10/2019 ALONG WITH ALL ANNEXURES TO IT."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 02.07.2022 stating as under:
"You have mentioned letter no. and date of the letter, which is required by you, so we presume that this letter is already in your possession if not kindly provide us the source from where you have obtain the letter no. date. This is the serious matter that you have accessed the confidential document in unauthorized manner."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.06.2022. FAA's order, dated 16.07.2022, held as under:
"The appellant has not received reply hence appealed. Meanwhile, the CPIO has furnished information to the applicant vide letter no.R-5/2022-23/444 dated 02.07.2022.
Now, the CPIO is instructed to send a copy of reply to the appellant within 10 days of receipt of this order. Further, the CPIO is advised to adhere by the timeline prescribed by RTI Act, 2005 while replying to RTI Application."
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/645412 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.05.2022 seeking the following information:3
"With due respect please provide the certified copies of Extant MHA Guidelines, Uttarakhand Disaster Management Guidelines/DM Instruction and Banks Guidelines for Sick/Weak immune and ill health employee period from 01 Jan 2020 to 30 Nov 2020, for treatment of medical leave/absence during the above period and circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic applicable to Bank employees."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 02.06.2022 stating as under:
"We enclosed herewith Banks Guidelines for Sick/Weak immune and ill health employee period from 01/01/2020 to 30/11/2020, for treatment of medical leave/absence during the above period and circumstances of Covid-19 pandemic applicable to Bank employees for your information please."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.06.2022. FAA's order, dated 16.07.2022, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/646701 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.05.2022 seeking the following information:
"1. Whenever a Note is raised by HR/Regional manager for obtaining necessary approval from Regional Manager or from DGM (B&0), the note is provided with a Note Serial Number from the Register maintained at HR RB0-5. With due respect please provide the certified copies of the page from the Register which contain record and allotment of Serial No from R5/HR/265 period of year 2019 to Serial No R5/HR/295 period of year 2019 for the Note raised by HR/Regional manager.
2.Provide the certified copy of the request letter submitted to DGM (B&0) by Regional Manager, RBO-5 on the basis of which DGM (B&O) raised my transfer request letter to AGM (HR) vide letter no HR/39/649 dated 02/12/2019.
3. Provide the certified copy of the forwarding letter and remarks of DGM (B&0) on my investigation report submitted by Shri BS Chauhan vide letter no 4 NIL dated 09/08/2019 forwarded to Regional Manager, RBO-5 by DGM (B&0).
4. Provide the copy of the CM (HR) letter No HR/38/1461 dated 07/01/2019 detailing Shri Ranbir Singh as my Inquiry officer.
5. Provide the certified copy of the forwarding letter and remarks of DGM (B&O) on my investigation report submitted by Shri Ranbir Singh vide letter no NIL dated 15/03/2019 to CM (HR) and further provide certified copy of the letter by which the Investigation report was forwarded to Regional Manager with remarks of DGM (B&O/CM (HR) forwarded to Regional Manager, RBO- 5 by DGM (B&O)/CM (HR).
6. Provide the certified copies of the letter/Note raised by Regional Manager RBO-5 to obtain Legal opinion from Banks Law officer at Dehradun administrative office on the letter issued by Uttarakhand Scheduled Tribe commission letter No C-1316/A. Janjati. Ayog/2019-20 dated 19 Sep 2019 against me along with the Legal opinion submitted by Law officer on above letter."
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 14.06.2022 stating as under:
"Para no.1:
Seeking copy of page of the register we advise you that page contains information of other applicant (third Party) also so sharing information of third party is exempted from disclosure under Sec 10 of the RTI Act.
Para no2, 3, 4,5 & 6 The information in these letters contains third party personal information, information of commercial confidence in nature, disclosure of which can affect safety or security of any person, or which is given in fiduciary capacity, so it is exempted from disclosure in terms of Sec 10 of the RTI Act."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.07.2022. FAA's order, dated 10.08.2022, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
5CIC/SBIND/A/2022/646714 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.05.2022 seeking the following information:
"1. Kindly provide the certified copy of the Specific Administrative Ground on which Shri Dinesh Chandra Jakhmola, was transferred from SBI, RBO-5, Dehradun to SBI Bhupatwala, Haridwar vide your letter No. R5/HR/DDUN/792 dated 26/12/2019.
2. Kindly provide the certified copy of the Centre Seniority list of Award staff for the year 2019-20, regarding Transfer under Redeployment Policy outside the Dehradun Centre."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 14.06.2022 stating as under:
"Para no. 1:
The transfer order is self-explicit which has been duly issued to you and it is already in your possession. Further during court preceding all necessary documents based on which decision was taken were duly served upon to you through Hon'ble court which is in your possession. Therefore, when the information is already in your possession, there is no occasion for filling RTI seeking such information.
Para no 3:
Details of transfer and posting of a clerical staff is considered as personal information and treated to be exempted from disclosure under Sec8(1) (j) of the RTI."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.07.2022. FAA's order, dated 08.08.2022, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
CIC/SBIND/A/2022/649137 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.06.2022 seeking the following information:6
"1. Kindly provide the certified copy of the expenditure undertaken by Bank, head wise and name wise and miscellaneous expenditure if any along with reasons of payment/expenditure, after Issue of Transfer order of Shri Dinesh Chandra Jakhmola vide letter R5/HR/DDUN/792 dated 26-12-2019, for raising a caveat at The High Court of Uttarakhand in the attached format.
2. Kindly provide the certified copy of the Expenditure undertaken by the bank on the Writ Petition at Uttarakhand High Court for Case No123/2020 and appeal Case No. SPA/92/2021 raised by Shri Dinesh Kumar Jakhmola, containing the bifurcation of expenditure head wise and name wise and Miscellaneous expenditure if any along with reasons of payment/expenditure, so as to arrive at the total expenditure undertaken by bank in the following format as per the provision of RTI Act, 2005.
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 02.07.2022 stating as under:
"Para no.2 Seeking copy of the expenditure undertaken by bank, head wise and name wise miscellaneous expenditure we advise you that page contains information of other applicant (third Party) also so sharing information of third party is exempted from disclosure under Sec 10 of the RTI Act.
Para no. 3:
Certified copy of the expenditure undertaken by bank on the writ petition at Uttarakhand High Court for case no/123/2020 and appeal case no 7 spa/92/2021 raised by you in the given format, we have to inform you that CPIO is not required under RTI Act to create any information in any designated format for the applicant, CPIO is not required to provide any reason as same does not fall under definition of information as provided under section-2 (F) of the RTI Act.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.07.2022. FAA's order, dated 24.08.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant set of Second Appeals.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: S. Sharma, CPIO present through video conference.
The Appellant at the outset contested alleged inaction of the Respondent in passing orders for arbitrary transfer of their employees for posting at far off locations without following any proper norms/policy/ guidelines in this regard. He further contested the fact that such transfer orders have been issued by their Establishment during Pandemic times without intimating any reasons thereof, which are in violation of natural justice. Technically such administrative decisions should be displayed on the notice board of HR Department in order to promote transparency and probity in the system. He further added that in this regard ,he has filed impugned RTI Applications seeking information on the averred issues; however, he is aggrieved with the fact that complete desired information has not been provided to him by the CPIO. While summing up his arguments, the Appellant frenzied on the fact that the replies furnished by the CPIO are alleged wrong and misleading.
Written submissions filed by the CPIO in each case are taken on record.
The CPIO while reiterating the contents of his replies against each case, submitted that the genesis of the instant matters, as admitted by the Appellant pertains to his own transfer case for which he has filed multiple RTI Applications to ventilate his personal grievance . He further submitted that the grievance of the Appellant 8 cannot be redressed through RTI channel as understood by him. Nonetheless, in the spirit of RTI Act, the CPIO agreed to abide by the direction of the bench.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of facts on records and after hearing submissions of both the parties at length observes that the sum and substance of the issues raised in the instant matters is not as much as about seeking access to information per se as it is about redressal of Appellant's grievance regarding his alleged transfer order for posting to a different location during COVID period and seeking clarifications from the CPIO in this regard.
For better understanding of the mandate of RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. In this regard, his attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) As far as jurisdiction of Commission is concerned, a reference may be had of a judgment of 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 wherein it has been held as under:9
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the 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) Moreover, it is also not of place to note that the information sought by the Appellant in case file no. CIC/SBIND/A/2022/646701, point no. 2 of case no. CIC/SBIND/A/2022/646714 contains the elements of personal information of third parties which cannot be divulged in view of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act; to that effect denial of information by the CPIO is apt. However, it should be denied by quoting the appropriate exemption clause in place of Section 10 of RTI Act as invoked by the CPIO. In this regard, the attention of the parties is drawn towards a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:10
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxxx
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information;.."
Here, attention of the Appellant is furthermore invited towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 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 & Ors., (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..."11
Nonetheless, in the spirit of RTI Act and by taking a liberal view in the matter plus considering the efflux of time, following directions are issued to the CPIO (case wise) -
• In case file no. CIC/SBIND/A/2022/640392 : CPIO is directed to provide a certified copy of Bank Circulars/ guidelines regarding Medical leave Rules issued for the SBI employees. In the event, these circulars are available in public domain, then CPIO is at liberty to invite attention of the Appellant towards the specific hyperlink from where such Bank circulars can be easily accessed.
• In case file no. CIC/SBIND/A/2022/640974: CPIO is directed to provide a certified copy of LHO DELHI LETTER NO HR/IR/JB/2333 DATED 09/10/2019 along with relevant available annexures. In doing so, the CPIO is at liberty to mask the identifying particulars and personal information of third parties by which may figure out from the annexures; and cannot be divulged in view of Section 8(1)(j) and 8 (1)(g) of RTI Act. The severance of records may be carried out by the CPIO by invoking Section 10 of RTI Act.
• In case file no. CIC/SBIND/A/2022/645412: CPIO is directed to revisit the contents of RTI Application and provide a revised categorical reply incorporating the facts as stated during hearing along with relevant additional circulars, available if any, which may suffices the information sought by the Appellant.
• In case file no. CIC/SBIND/A/2022/646701 & CIC/SBIND/A/2022/646714 :
No infirmity is found in the replies against the grievance of the Appellant as the same were found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act. Thus, no further relief is ordered in the instant cases.
• In case file no. CIC/SBIND/A/2022/649137: CPIO is directed to revisit the contents of RTI Application and provide a revised categorical reply along with bifurcation of Expenditure towards legal fees etc undertaken by the bank on the Writ Petition at Uttarakhand High Court for Case No. 123/2020 and appeal Case No. SPA/92/2021 raised by Appellant, containing the bifurcation of expenditure head wise and name wise and Miscellaneous expenditure, available if any, which may suffices the information sought by the Appellant.12
In doing so, the CPIO is at liberty to mask the identifying particulars and personal information of third parties by which may figure out from the annexures; and cannot be divulged in view of Section 8(1)(j) and 8 (1)(g) of RTI Act. The severance of records may be carried out by the CPIO by invoking Section 10 of RTI Act.
The above said information through separate revised replies (case wise) should be provided by the CPIO free of cost to the Appellant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
In addition to above, the CPIO is further directed to share a copy of his latest written submissions free of cost with the Appellant immediately upon receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeals are 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 / 13