Central Information Commission
Mr.Duryadhan Ganpat Ramteke vs Central Bank on 18 April, 2013
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CLUB BUILDING (NEAR POST OFFICE)
OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI110067
TEL.: 01126179548
Decision No.CIC/VS/A/2012/000095/02864
Appeal No. CIC/VS/A/2012/000095
Dated: 18.4.2013
Appellant: Shri Duryadhan Ganpat Ramteke,
Flat No. 304, Jeevan Aptt. No.3,
Near Dr. Ambedkar Garden,
Vaishali Nagar, Nagpur440017
Respondent: Public Information Officer,
Central Bank of India,
Asstt. General Manager,
Regional Office, Chhindwara (M.P.)
Date of Hearing 18.4.2013
ORDER
RTI application:
1. The appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO on 25.2.2011 seeking certified copies of certain documents with regard to departmental enquiry proceeding conducted against a branch manager of a branch under Chhindwara Region. The PIO denied the information on 5.3.2012 under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. Not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, the appellant filed an appeal with the first appellate authority (FAA) on 30.2.2012. The FAA upheld the reply of PIO on 31.3.2012. The appellant approached the Commission on 26.4.2012 in second appeal.
Hearing
3. The appellant and the respondent both participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The appellant referred to his RTI application and stated that he wanted information on the various points indicated in the application, which essentially pertained to getting information along with copies of the relevant documents pertaining to the chargesheet and the final order connected with the officer named in the RTI application. The appellant stated that the information which the bank should have provided, has been denied to him without any application of mind.
5. The respondent stated that the information sought in the RTI application has been denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The respondent reiterated the order of the first appellate authority stating that the information was personal in nature, the disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest.
6. The appellant stated that the information was required by him to show that he had been discriminated against by the bank management in departmental proceedings and that it was in the public interest for the facts to emerge. The appellant stated that the officer named in the RTI application, about whom the information was being sought, was let off with lighter punishment for the same irregularity in functioning, while he (the appellant) was dismissed for the same offence, which was evidence of the subjective manner of functioning in the bank.
7. The matter pertains to official bank proceedings and departmental action caused by administrative irregularities. In view of what has emerged during the hearing, section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act should not be used to deny information to the appellant.
Decision
8. The respondent is directed to provide to the appellant, within 30 days of this order, copies of the three documents sought in the RTI application dated 25.2.2012.
Appeal is disposed off. Copy of this decision be given free of cost to both the parties.
(Vijai Sharma) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer