Central Information Commission
Kamini Jaiswal vs Union Bank Of India on 28 July, 2022
Author: Suresh Chandra
Bench: Suresh Chandra
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 No. CIC/CORPB/A/2020/675191/UBIND
CIC/CORPB/A/2020/671080/UBIND
Kamini Jaiswal & ... अपीलकता/Appellants
Gagan Jaiswal
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Union Bank of India
(erstwhile Corporation Bank) ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
New Delhi
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 25-09-2019/ FA : 02-11-2019/ SA: 20.5.2020/
21-11-2019 24-12-2019 24.6.2020
CPIO : No Reply FAO : No Order Hearing : 07.07.2022
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
SHRI SURESH CHANDRA
ORDER
(29.07.2022)
1. The issues raised in both the appeals CIC/CORPB/A/2020/675191/UBIND & CIC/CORPB/A/2020/671080/UBIND are similar. Therefore, it is felt desirable to pass a common order on both the appeals.
1.1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeals dated 20.5.2020/24.6.2020 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI applications dated 25-09-2019/21-11-2019 and first appeals dated 02-11-2019/24-12-2019 :-
Page 1 of 4CIC/CORPB/A/2020/675191/UBIND
(i) "Please confirm whether Mrs. Rashmi Jaiswal has attended the Corporation Bank Jhandewallan Brach office on 13th Dec'16 or not. Reply should be in Yes or No
(ii) Please provide the exact dates when Mrs. Rashmi Jaiswal was on leave in Dec'16."
CIC/CORPB/A/2020/671080/UBIND "Please provide to applicant the exact date details on which Mrs. Rashmi Jaiswal (No.219988) was on official leave between 19th Aug'16 to 29th Aug'16. Please certify the reply."
2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellants filed applications dated 25-09- 2019/21-11-2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Union Bank of India (erstwhile Corporation Bank), New Delhi, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO did not give any reply. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants filed first appeals dated 02.11.2019/24-12-2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) did not pass any order. Aggrieved by that, the appellants filed second appeals dated 20.5.2020/24.6.2020 before the Commission which is under consideration.
3. The appellant has filed the instant appeals dated 20.5.2020/24.6.2020 inter alia on the grounds that no reply was received from the respondent. The appellants requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.
4. Perusal of the records submitted by the appellant while filing the second appeals dated 20.5.2020/24.6.2020 reveals that neither the CPIO nor the FAA provided any information or any reply to the appellants.
Page 2 of 45. The appellant Shri Gagan Deep Jaiswal attended the hearing through video conference and the respondent remained absent despite notice.
5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had illegally and deliberately denied the information although the same did not involve any personal details of Ms. Rashmi Jaiswal.
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the appellant and perusal of records, observed that no reply was given by the respondent till date. Perusal of the RTI application revealed that the appellants had sought certain information about Ms. Rashmi Jaiswal, daughter-in-law of Ms. Kamini Jaiswal and wife of Mr. Gagan Jaiswal. The appellants in their second appeals contended that Ms. Rashmi Jaiswal was in an employee in the bank and was allegedly misusing her position to settle personal scores with her. In view of the above, the observations passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its decision dated 01.07.2009 [W.P.(C) 803/2009 Vijay Prakash vs. UOI and others]may be relied upon:
"14. The right to access public information, that is, information in the possession of state agencies and governments, in democracies is an accountability measure empowering citizens to be aware of the actions taken by such state "actors". This transparency value, at the same time, has to be reconciled with the legal interests protected by law, such as other fundamental rights, particularly the fundamental right to privacy. This balancing or reconciliation becomes even more crucial if we take into account the effects of the technological challenges which arise on account of privacy. Certain conflicts may arise in particular cases of access to information and the protection of personal data, stemming from the fact that both rights cannot be exercised absolutely. The rights of all those affected must be respected, and no right can prevail over others, except in clear and express circumstances."
However, the respondent has not given any reply in response to the RTI application so far. In view of the above, the respondent is directed that appropriate reply may be given to the appellant within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Further, their absence during the hearing is viewed seriously by the Commission and are Page 3 of 4 cautioned to attend the hearing diligently in future. With these observations and directions, the appeals are disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
सुरेश चं ा)
(Suresh Chandra) (सु ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 29.07.2022
Authenticated true copy
R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)
दनांक/Date: 25.07.2022
Addresses of the parties:
The CPIO
Union Bank of India (
Erstwhile Corporation Bank)
Circle Office-Delhi No.1 MGF
Automobiles Ltd Faiz Road,
Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110005
The FAA
Union Bank of India (
Erstwhile Corporation Bank)
Circle Office-Delhi No.1 MGF
Automobiles Ltd Faiz Road,
Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110005
Ms Kamini Jaiswal,
SHRI GAGAN JAISWAL
Page 4 of 4