Central Information Commission
Aditya Narayan vs State Bank Of India on 18 March, 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/2024/602175
Aditya Narayan ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: State Bank of India,
Lucknow ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 25.11.2023 FA : 22.12.2023 SA : Nil
CPIO : 21.12.2023 FAO : 11.01.2024 Hearing : 07.03.2025
Date of Decision: 18.03.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.11.2023 seeking information on the following points:
It has emerged following the course of proceedings described below Quote, 1-Information was sought,
(a)Had Sri Rajendra Kumar Mishra P.F. No.****972 given his option for promotion? Information was denied by the CPIO vide letter P&E/2023-24/419 dated 11-08-2023 Page 1 of 5
(b) Under which rule of State Bank of India officers Service Rule Sri Rajendra Kumar Mishra was reverted to clerical cadre after 30 months Information was denied by the CPIO vide letter P&E/2023-24/419 dated 11-08-2023.
2- First Appeal No. SBILW/A/E/23/00122 dated 10-09-2023 was preferred. It was decided by the First Appellate Authority vide letter no. BOPM-1/RTI/2023- 24/350 dated 26/09/2023 that no information has been sought in point number 1 and agreed to disclose the information sought in point number 2. 3- The information was again sought vide RTI application SBILW/R/E/23/00689 dated 27-09-2023. Information was denied by the CPIO vide letter number P&E/2023-24/738 dated 16-10-2023 4-First Appeal No. SBILW/A/E/23/00147 dated 27-09-2023 was preferred. 5-Information was denied by the First Appellate Authority vide letter number BOPM-1/RTI/2023-24/437 dated 06-11-2023.
6- The CPIO vide letter no. P & E/2023-24/765 dated 25-10-2023 replied that while reverting Sri Rajendra Kumar Mishra no rules were exercised by the competent authority. He was reverted on account of his non- performance/unsatisfactory performance in the bank after promotion. 7-Information was sought to vide RTI application no SBILW/R/E/23/00779 dated 03-11-2023, (In which branch Sri Rajendra Kumar Mishra was posted where his services were assessed to be non-performing/unsatisfactory to the extent which resulted in his reversion from officer cadre to clerical cadre after 30 months?) 8- The CPIO vide letter no. P&E/RTI/2023-24/862 dated 22-11-2023 replied that Sri Rajendra Kumar Mishra was not posted anywhere but was merely instructed to report AD Allahabad after promotion. It implies that he was posted nowhere where he could provide his services to the bank after the promotion. If an employee is not in a position to provide his services how can he be punished for Page 2 of 5 his non-performance/unsatisfactory performance, how can he be punished for the acts he had never done? Unquote that the reversion order of Sri Rajendra Kumar Mishra PF.No ****972 plays a significant role in this context and that is why it is being misinterpreted time and again It is therefore humbly requested to provide a copy of the reversion order of Sri Rajendra Kumar Mishra PF.No.2532972 mentioned by the CPIO vide letter no. P&E/2023-24/765 dated 25-10-2023 in compliance with the First Appellate Authority order no. BOPM-1/RTI/2023-24/350 dated 26-09-2023 and concerning my RTI application no, SBILW/R/E/00475 dated 15-07-2023.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 21.12.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"With reference to your RTI application no. SBILW/R/E/23/00829 dated 25.11.2023, we have to advise that the desired information is with respect to third party, hence, cannot be given as per section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act 2005."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.12.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 11.01.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
5. The appellant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Jay Prakash Ojha, CPIO, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought pertained to Mr. Rajendra Kumar Mishra (third-party), disclosure of Page 3 of 5 which had no relationship to any public activity or interest, hence, exemption under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act has been sought. Additionally, a court case w.r.t subject matter of the RTI application is also pending before Hon'ble Allahabad High Court for adjudication.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act vide letter dated 21.12.2023. The Commission notes that the appellant has sought for the personal information of Mr. Rajendra Kumar Mishra (third party), disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Hence, the CPIO correctly denied the information under Section 8(1)(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 Page 4 of 5 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: 18.03.2025 Authenticated true copy Sharad Kumar (शरद कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO Assistant General Manager, Premises and Estate Department, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Moti Mahal Marg, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh - 22600 2 Aditya Narayan Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)