Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Nallamsetti Siva Prasad Babu vs State Bank Of India on 26 May, 2025

                                     के ीय सूचना आयोग
                             Central Information Commission
                                  बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                              Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                नई िद    ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं        ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2024/607374

Nallamsetti Siva Prasad Babu                                     ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम
CPIO: State Bank of India,
Hyderabad                                                  ... ितवादीगण/Respondents

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 01.01.2024               FA       : 10.01.2024             SA     : 18.02.2024

CPIO : 08.01.2024              FAO : 29.01.2024                  Hearing : 20.05.2025


Date of Decision: 26.05.2025
                                        CORAM:
                                  Hon'ble Commissioner
                                _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                       ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.01.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1. I came to know that Sri Sundarapalli Mehar Baba (ex-staff supervising worked in your bank) was terminated from your bank services vide final order No. DMHUB(S)/AMA/KNR/2021-22/1318, dated 21/08/2021 issued by disciplinary authority, discipline management hub (south) Chennai, due to he received borrower's loan proceeds to his accounts through suppliers/intermediaries accounts, misappropriated public/customers money, and incurred financial and reputational loss to your bank while he was working in your Rangampeta branch, East Godavari district, Andhra Pradesh.

Now I request you to advise me the total amount of public money was misappropriated by him and how much amount of public/customer money misappropriated was recovered from his superannuation benefits till now.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 08.01.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-

"No such information is held with the public authority. The information sought by him is in the nature third party personal information in fiduciary capacity, therefore the same is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005."

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.01.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 29.01.2024 stated as under:-

"I have examined the application and the appeal of the appellant, and of the pinion that the information sought for by the applicant cannot be disclosed under RTI Act as it falls under the nature of commercial confidence and is exempted from disclosure under 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. Hence the appeal is dismissed."

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 18.02.2024.

5. The appellant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the respondent Mr. L.P Rajshekhar, CPIO, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had sought the total amount of public money that was misappropriated by Mr. Sundarapalli Mehar Baba (ex-staff of bank) and how much amount of public/customer money misappropriated was recovered from his superannuation benefits till now. He stated that the above said information falls under the nature of commercial confidence Page 2 of 4 and personal information of third party, hence, exempted u/s 8 (1) (d) & (j) of the RTI Act. A written statement dated 12.05.2025 of the respondent has been taken on record.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act vide letter dated 08.01.2024. Further, information sought falls under the nature of commercial confidence and personal information of third party. Hence, the CPIO correctly denied the information under Section 8(1) (d) & (j) of 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 & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & amp; 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..."

8. Further, in the absence of the Appellant to plead his case or contest the CPIO's submissions and in the absence of the larger public interest, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 26.05.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1 The CPIO "State Bank Of India, CPIO, Premises & Estate Department, Amaravati Local Head Office, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad, Telangana-500095 2 Nallamsetti Siva Prasad Babu Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)