Central Information Commission
Roshni Joshi vs United Commercial Bank (Uco) on 31 March, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/UCOBK/A/2020/672815
Roshni Joshi ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
UCO Bank, RTI Cell, HRM
Department, 10BTM Sarani
Marg, Head Office, Kolkata,
-700001, West Bengal. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 09/01/2023
Date of Decision : 24/03/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 02/04/2020
CPIO replied on : 28/04/2020
First appeal filed on : 29/04/2020
First Appellate Authority's order : 02/05/62020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.04.2020 seeking the following information:
"1.Kindly provide me with the list of marks obtained by all the candidates appeared in written test for promotion from scale II to III, for 2020-21, under merit 1 channel. List must have been obtained directly from IBPS or NIMS or other similar institute and must not bear the letter head of UCO Bank.
2. List of marks reflected in Annual Performance Report for last 3 years by same candidates appeared in promotion test from scale II to III,2020-21, under merit channel.
3. List of professional qualification of same candidates appeared in promotion test from scale II to III, 2020- 21, under merit channel.
4. List of period reckoned of their branch head experience and rural and semi urban posting, while evaluating same candidates during promotion test, from scale II to III, 2020- 21, under merit channel.
5. List of marks obtained by all the candidates in interview, promotion test form scale II to III, 2020- 21, under merit channel.
6.list of candidates disqualified in promotion exam scale II to III, 2020- 21, under merit channel.
7. Detailed reason and complete analysis of disqualification of candidates, promotion exam form scale II to III, 2020- 21, under merit channel. All the reasons and parameters of disqualified candidates must be mentioned.
8. List of other parameters on the basis of which their qualification in the exam has been arrived upon and its detailed final analysis."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 28.04.2020 stating as under :-
"For point 1, 2, 3, 5 ,6: Information sought in your application is relating to personal information the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual and the same has no relationship to any larger public interest or activity.
For Point 4: The period of consideration is feeder scale period till 31.03.2020. For Point 7: Detailed Reasons and Complete Analysis is not information as per RTI Act.
For point 8: Please refer to clause 11 (B)- Note: Distribution of marks-percentage points of Promotion Policy for Officers, in vogue"
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.04.2020 stating as under:
"As already known to you, I have been subjected to Sexual Harassment & criminal Conspiracy in our bank by NARRSH KUMAR, GM, HO ,HRM, HARMOHAN ARORA and others. I have already lodged criminal case in the court of law against said alleged officials concurrently with formal WHISTLE BLOWER COMPLAINT under WHISTLE BLOWER PROTECTION ACT on charges of alleged full fledged 2 CORRUPTION in our bank. Thus with reference to point no 1,2,3,5 &6, competent authority MR NARESH KUMAR himself for said promotion process, is alleged of grave charges of Sexual Harassment, Criminal Conspiracy, absolute abuse of power and Corruption. Under such circumstances, when performances are to be evaluated by said alleged officers, it must ensure that the personal bias and other factors do not play role in such important decisions. When corrupt officials acting as competent authority in promotion process, would come to know that the decisions are under scrutiny, they will be subjected to strictly follow guidelines. Moreover this will bring in transparency in the promotion process. Right to information to entire promotion process is intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible public figure to discourage corruption and bring transparency and accountability, states clause ( b) of section 4(1) under the act. Thus, the expression public interest here does not justify its rigid meaning but define larger interest by which legal rights and liabilities are affected. It also means general welfare of public which warrants recognition and protection, something in which participants as a whole has a stake. Moreover with reference to point 1,2,3,5 & 6 this can not be treated as personal information as reports and numerics related to promotion process, relates to the official process of promotion and not personal information of any employee. Denial of information under clause 8(1) (j) is mere misuse of provisions of the act to hide the information from affected employees inclusive of information seeker. Pertaining to point no 4, I seek for the period reckoned in terms of months/ years (for all the candidates appeared in promotion process of scale ii to iii ,merit channel), and not the deadline provided to reckon such period. As refer to point no 7, analysis here means a report of promotion process, containing merits/numerics, based on which candidates have been qualified/disqualified. Definition under section 6 of RTI Act shows that the seeker can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to public authority under law."
FAA's order dated 02.06.2020, held as under:
"I, being the appellate Authority, have examined your application and found that your application has already been disposed of by the CPIO on 28.04.2020.
Reply to query no. 1,2,3,5&6: This is personal information of employees and can't be provided u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005.
Reply to query no. 4: The feeder scale period i.e. 31.03.2020 provided was not a deadline; it is the period reckoned will be the feeder scale period. Moreover, such 3 period for all the employees is a personal information which is exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005.
Reply to query no. 7: This information can't be provided, as the merits/numeric is for internal evaluation and also personal information of the employees. However, officers who have not qualified in IBPS and in interview process and are otherwise not eligible as per extant guidelines of the promotion policy in vogue have not been selected for scale II to III, u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005.
Reply to query no. 8: This is not information u/s 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal largely reiterating the grounds of the First Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: Khushi Ram, AGM & CPIO present through audio conference.
The Appellant was heard at length during the course of which she desired to narrate in detail the factual background of the information sought for in the RTI Application as well as the entire timeline of the alleged sexual harassment case being pursued by her. While the Commission continued to hear her submissions, she was counselled about the scope and mandate of the RTI Act which did not warrant a threadbare analysis of the said factual background or the gamut of questions and dissatisfaction she stated to be having with the action taken by the Respondent Bank in the matter of the alleged sexual harassment. However, she burst into frenzied arguments expressing her discontent with the hearing proceedings and demanded to be heard in the manner she deemed as fit.
The CPIO reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant and the hearing was concluded reserving the decision in the matter.
Decision:4
In view of the hearing proceedings, the Commission deems it fit to verbatim quote the contents of the written submissions (17 pages excluding enclosures) filed by the Appellant on 17.01.2023 (common to 9 of her Appeals that were listed for hearing in a bunch manner), of which, the factual background is being quoted only to the extent that provides a gist of the narrative, as other details bear sensitive information related to the case averred to have put forth to the Internal Complaints Committee of the Respondent Bank and other concerned competent authorities:
"1. In UCO Bank fence is eating crops! At the outset, the instant case is in respect of one malaise, "Corruption " - the cancer at the heart of so many problems that has been plaguing the Indian Banking System, particularly the Public Sector Banks. The illegal & unethical practices flourishing in UCO Bank and the relentless harassment and irreparable detriment caused, constrained me to file as many as nine appeals before the CIC. This case is a jarring example of how conscious efforts to scuttle the investigation, thereby stifling the complaints of grievous nature and brow-beating of a whistle-blower, have been made in a recurring manner, by certain top- executives of the respondent bank. Respondents allegedly abused their powers and misused their positions in harbouring one another, thereby, committing various offences, inter alia offences of perpetrating corrupt practices, criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery, using fabricated documents as genuine, and offences involving moral turpitude, liable to be punished under the various Indian laws, in order to ensure that their nefarious activities, inter alia abuse of powers, enabling of sexual harassment and perpetrating cruelties on employees of the respondent bank could go unchecked without any hindrance.
2. The instant case is a glaring example of relentless persecution of a woman employee of a Public Sector Bank, who has been taken in reprisal, thereby converting entire machinery available at disposal of respondent bank, into an instrument to harbour perpetrators & settle personal score by the means of frequent transfers, arbitrary suspensions, spoiling her career and disqualifying her from the promotion, bombarding her with plethora of forged and fabricated show- causes, reminders, notices and as many as three fabricated charge- sheets basing outright fictitious and fabricated complaints cropped up against her, illegally removing her from services of UCO Bank, hounding her with carrying out perennial and everlasting inquires thereby keeping such departmental proceedings at abeyance for an indefinite period, all this to her, only because she opposed & acted against the sexual advances of a stalwart union leader of the bank and blew whistles in discharge of her duties as a banker, against corrupt practices being carried out in respondent bank.5
xxx
30. The gist of aforementioned facts have been brought out succinctly in the following words: In pursuance of alleged incident of sexual harassment, Mr. Harmohan Arora, Mr. Naresh kumar & Mr. Atul Kumar Goel allegedly in complicity with the AIBOC Leaders, among other conspirators hatched a criminal conspiracy against me, thereby colluding with one another, they attempted to muzzle the complaints of grievous nature filed against them, throw me out of bank's premises, forcibly transferred and illegally suspended my service, cropped up forged and fabricated complaints, dodged my requests to provide copies of crucial pieces of evidence, and cropped up as many as three (03) bogus inquiries against me, with an ulterior motive of wielding quasi-judicial powers, as a tool for a witch- hunt and a means to ensure that a pendora's box is not opened. I was allegedly faced with gang of powerful leaders and executives, who in order favour perpetrators abused their powers recurrently, and illegally threw me out of the services, that caused me a wrongful loss to the tune of 20 lakh approx. in terms of emoluments, & also caused irreparable harm to my body, mind and reputation; that I was removed from the bank's service without passing any final Order w. r. t the inquiry proceedings conducted into the allegations of sexual harassment; that at the same, time, all the complaints alleging said top executives of the bank of having committed various corrupt activities, are pending for their disposal at UCO bank's end, and thereby suppressing material facts stated therein the said complaints, I have been illegally removed from the service, just to ensure that pendora's box is not opened. A Writ petition to this effect bearing Ref. No. 5092/2021 has been filed before the Bombay High Court."
As far as the information sought for in the RTI Application and the reply of the CPIO is concerned, the Commission observes that the CPIO has provided permissible information and has invoked Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act appropriately. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is further 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 6 Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & 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..."
Similarly, a bare perusal of the grounds of the Appellant's dissatisfaction as communicated through her appeal grounds as well as her written submissions suggest that she is questioning the merits of the action/inaction of the Respondent office against her sexual harassment complaint; merits of the suspension order issued to her and issues related thereto. None of these aspects of the case are amenable to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the RTI Act or are answerable by the CPIO within his mandate under the Act. Here, the Appellant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to 7 act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) Having observed as above, the Commission is not in a position to order any relief in the matter as the reply provided by the CPIO is appropriate as per the provisions of the RTI Act. For any further dissatisfaction with the alleged administrative decisions taken by the Respondent Bank or the alleged inaction, the Appellant is advised to approach the appropriate forum.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 8