Central Information Commission
Priti Ranjan Dash vs Reserve Bank Of India on 17 June, 2022
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीयअपीलसं या/Second Appeal Nos. CIC/RBIND/A/2017/179556
... अपीलकता /Appellant
Ms. Priti Ranjan Dash
Authorized Signatory of HDFC Bank
Limited
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
RBI, Department of Non-Banking
Supervision Central Office, 2nd Floor,
Centre-1 Cuffe Parade, Colaba,
Mumbai-400005
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
RTI : 25-04-2017 FA : 05-07-2017 SA : 20-11-2017
Hearing: 01-08-2019,
CPIO : 18-05-2017 FAO : 09-08-2017 13-11-2019, 07-12-
2021 & 13-06-2022
ORDER
1. The above mentioned matter had been listed before the Commission for hearing on 01.08.2019, 13.11.2019 & 07.12.2021 wherein the Commission made following observations:-
"The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, noted that the RTI applicant, Shri Priya Ranjan Srivastava remained absent and, in his absence, it would not be appropriate to hear such important matter. Therefore, with a view to comply with the principal of natural justice, the Page 1 of 6 matter is adjourned and the Registry is directed to issue fresh notice to all the parties."
2. In view of the above, the matter was thus adjourned and listed today for further hearing.
Hearing:
3. Adv. Ayesh Gandhi (Counsel for the Appellant Bank) attended the hearing through video-conferencing. The respondent, Shri Vinod Kumar, Representative of CPIO/Deputy General Manager attended the hearing through video-conferencing. The original applicant remained absent despite notice.
4. The written submissions of the parties are taken on record.
5. The Counsel for the appellant bank referred the reply provided by CPIO and order passed by the FAA and submitted that the CPIO, RBI and FAA had violated the principles of natural justice as the FAA has passed the impugned order without giving any opportunity of being heard to the appellant bank and has inter alia failed to appreciate that the information sought to be disclosed is exempt from disclosure under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005. Inter alia since the FMR Report No. HDFC16010070 dated 11.03.2016 pertains to fraud committed by certain employees of the appellant bank, including the concerned applicant Shri Priya Ranjan Srivastava, in the Bhagalpur Branch of the appellant bank, and which was detected during a branch audit and the investigation in that regard is still pending. He has further relied on one judgment passed by the Commission in file no. CIC/AT/A/2008/00437 in the matter of Shri. G. v. Rao vs. Centre for DNA, Fingerprinting and Diagnostics, Hyderabad, wherein it was held asunder:-
"...during on-going investigations, there have been occasions where the former employees and/ or the employees under suspension have initiated RTI proceedings for forceful disclosure of documents, regardless of what the enquiry officers may have to say on this; potentially the process of the enquiry is impeded."
It is further submitted that the appellant bank has also filed a complaint bearing complaint no. 3582/2018 with the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna under section 156 (3) of Cr. P.C, 1973, has directed the Kotwali/ Patna Police to investigate the matter. The investigation, therefore in the matter is still pending.
Page 2 of 66. The representative of the RBI Bank submitted that w.r.t query nos. 1 to 3 of the RTI Application, HDFC Bank has been issued a notice under section 11 (1) of the RTI Act regarding disclosure of the information contained in the responses received from it and he will be replied appropriately after getting the reply from the HDFC Bank in this regard. The CPIO also replied to the applicant that requested information is not available with the Reserve Bank regarding query no. 2. As regards query no. 4, the CPIO informed the applicant that the copies of FMR-1 reports during the period 01.04.2016 to 31.12.2016 contain 50 pages and if he wish to obtain the same, he may remit Rs. 100/- as photocopy charges payable under Rule 4 of the RTI Rules, by way of Demand Draft/ bankers Cheque/ Postal order payable to Reserve Bank of India at Mumbai or in cash at any of RBI's offices.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought information regarding FMR no. HDFC1601-0070 dated 11.03.2016 submitted by HDFC Bank and other queries related thereto. The appellant bank has contended that the CPIO as well as FAA without application of mind has intended to disclose the requested information even after knowing that the same relates to an ongoing and pending investigation, in which the applicant is also an accused. In light thereof, the information sought to be disclosed would in all likelihood be misused/ abused by the applicant to impede the investigation and/ or to thwart his prosecution. The information is, therefore, exempt under section 8 (1) (h) of the Act.
8. The FAA has erroneously applied the Supreme Court's Order dated 16.12.2015 titled as RBI vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry, without understanding that the said order merely decides the specific question of law as is framed therein. The said order cannot, in any circumstances, be deemed to be adjudication on merits of all, or any, cases involving disclosure of information available with the RBI, relating to the third party information, which will have to be decided on case to case basis by the relevant authorities under the Act. In cases relating to third party information, the said determination can only be made after hearing the concerned third party, who is entitled, by agitating its case, to bring to the notice of the concerned authority on whether and for what reasons the information Page 3 of 6 sought for falls within exemptions provided under section 8 of the Act. The appellant bank has also relied on one judgment titled as Shri. G. v. Rao vs. Centre for DNA, Fingerprinting and Diagnostics, Hyderabad bearing file no. CIC/AT/A/2008/00437, wherein the Commission vide its order dated 31.12.2008 has held that "Considering the large ramification, it is unsafe to authorise disclosure of such information under the RTI Act." The Commission has carefully gone through the contents of the said judgment and observes that the said case is applicable in the present matter.
9. The Commission further observes that the CPIO while issuing notice under Section 11 of the RTI Act has given the opportunity to the Bank to file their objection, if any, against disclosure of requested information but has not found it necessary to give them an opportunity of hearing. While not doing so, the CPIO has not passed any reasoned order covering his deliberations on their objection, his understanding of law or jurisprudence in deciding specific objection, in favor of disclosure or redaction etc. Order passed by the CPIO in the instant case is cryptic, without any reference to objection raised by the Bank. Similarly, the FAA instead of passing a speaking order has also given cryptic order to the appellant bank. The CPIO and the FAA are expected to apply their mind before issuing the order of intent of disclosing the information. Further, no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the appellant nor speaking order have been passed by FAA for not giving opportunity of hearing or elaborating reasons for accepting /not accepting their objection in his decision in this appeal. The Commission is of the view that every objection should have been dealt and rejected/accepted with a reason and reasons for not giving opportunity of personal hearing should have been well reasoned too in view of wider implications.
10. The Commission furthermore observes that since the applicant herein, was the prime perpetrator of the fraud which is under investigation, the disclosure of the information sought by the applicant will impede the process of the investigation and/ or the process of prosecution. Also, the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna under section 156 (3) of Cr. P.C, 1973, has directed the Kotwali/ Patna Police to investigate the matter. Therefore the information sought and intended to be disclosed by the CPIO and FAA is therefore exempt under section 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act. Further, as the fraud involves other employees and persons, the information sought to be disclosed related to personal information of those employees/ persons also and the disclosure of such information is exempted under section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act. In the context of non-disclosure of information under section 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act, a reference Page 4 of 6 can be made to the decision of the bench of the Commission in Shri Arun Kumar Agrawal v. SEBI CIC/SM/A/2012/000196 dated 28.11.2014 wherein it was held as under:
"15. In the present case, final orders are yet to be passed by the competent authority under the SEBI Act. Therefore, the process of investigation against the RIL is still pending before SEBI and it cannot be said the same has reached its conclusion. Hence, the requested information falls under exemption under section 8(1) (h) of the Act.
16. The Commission recognizes the perspective brought out on public interest in the course of the hearing. The appellant had underlined emphatically the dimensions of public interest overriding the protected interest, i.e. the protection given to the 'fiduciary' elements. However, the other side argued that the appellant is overstating the public interest without taking into account that the investigation is still going on. We have, therefore, to await the completion of this investigation. It will not be wise for the Commission to speculate as to what conclusions the SEBI will draw."
11. In light of the above observations, the Commission expressed severe displeasure towards the conduct of the CPIO and FAA as the respondent public authority without application of mind has sent notice to the Appellant Bank under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act and FAA has erroneously applied the Supreme Court's Order dated 16.12.2015 (RBI vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry). The Commission is of the view that the CPIO should clearly identify the information and then give response to the RTI applicants rather than giving identical, cryptic replies. The CPIO and the FAA has not applied their mind before disposing the RTI application of the applicant. The respondent is directed to be careful in future and ensure that RTI applications of the applicants should be dealt with due diligence.
12. In view of this, the order of the First Appellate Authority is set-aside and no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
13. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 5 of 614. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरजकु मारगु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु ा
सूचनाआयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 13-06-2022
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
RBI, Department of Supervision
Centre-1, World Trade Centre,
Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai-400005
2. Ms. Priti Ranjan Das (Appellant)
3. Shri Priya Ranjan Srivastava (Original Applicant) Page 6 of 6