Central Information Commission
Mrkundan S Humane vs Dena Bank on 18 February, 2015
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000455
File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000457
File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000458
File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000486
File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000525
File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/001946
File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/001947
File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/001948
File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/001454
File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/001943
File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/001944
File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000456
File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/001945
File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/001949
File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/002927
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 18th February 2015
Date of decision : 18th February 2015
Name of the Appellant : Shri Kundan S Humane,
Plot No. 67, Janki Nagar, B/H, Bhagyalaxmi
Sabhagruha, Ring Road, Nagpur 440 034
Name of the Public Authority/ : (1) Central Public Information Officer,
Respondent Dena Bank,
Office of Zonal Manager & CPIO, Nagpur Zonal Office, Mytri Willows, Oppo.
Shukrawari Lake, Nagpur 440 018 (2) Central Public Information Officer, Dena Bank, Office of Dy. Zonal Manager & CIC/SH/A/2014/000457 CPIO, Legal Department, Zonal Office, 2nd Floor, Cavas Arcade, Shalimar, Shivaji Road, Nashik 422 001 Central Public Information Officer, (3) Dena Bank, Office of General Manager (HRM) & CPIO, Dena Corporate Centre, C10, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 The Appellant was present at the NIC Studio, Nagpur.
On behalf of the Respondents, Shri J. V. Shenoy, Zonal Manager was present at the NIC Studio, Nagpur and Shri Diwakar Prabhu, Deputy Zonal Manager was present at the NIC Studio, Nashik.
No one was present at the NIC Studio, Bandra on behalf of the office of General Manager (HRM) and CPIO.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal These files contain appeals to the Commission in respect of the following RTI applications filed by the Appellant: Sl. No. File No. Date of RTI application
1. File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000455 11.10.2013
2. File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000457 1.10.2013
3. File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000458 11.10.2013 CIC/SH/A/2014/000457
4. File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000486 8.11.2013
5. File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000525 19.11.2013
6. File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/001946 18.3.2014
7. File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/001947 13.3.2014
8. File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/001948 15.3.2014
9. File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/001454 20.2.2014
10. File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/001943 12.4.2014
11. File No. CIC/SG/A/2014/001944 24.3.2014
12. File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000456 4.10.2013
13. File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/001945 1.5.2014
14. File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/001949 11.3.2014
15. File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/002927 26.7.2014
2. The above appeals came up for hearing today.
3. In the RTI application dated 11.10.2013 (File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000455), the Appellant sought information regarding the suspension and revocation of suspension order of the then Senior Manager of the Dena Bank Branch, Khaparkheda, Nagpur, Shri B. Meshram. He, inter alia, enquired as to how the bank disciplinary authority initiated "the minor punishment" against the above mentioned Senior Branch Manager and continues to retain him on duty. The Appellant stated that he was removed from the service of the bank on account of certain grounds which, according to him, were not CIC/SH/A/2014/000457 justified. However, some other employees of the bank, who were involved in serious frauds and corruption cases, have continued to serve in the bank.
4. In the RTI application dated 1.10.2013 (File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000457), the Appellant sought information regarding certain loan accounts and action taken by the bank authorities against some officers of the bank in respect of certain alleged irregularities. The Appellant stated that there was a scam of over Rs. 1 crores at a branch of the bank and he sought information in the above context.
5. In the RTI application dated 11.10.2013 (File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000458), the Appellant sought information regarding the leave record of Shri S. P. Labhane, an officer of the bank for the period 2008 to 2013. He also enquired whether the pay of the above officer was deducted in case he was on leave during the year 2009. The Appellant stated that Shri S. P. Labhane got some of his transfer orders cancelled, while his own (the Appellant's) requests regarding his transfer were not acceded to. The Respondents submitted that the Appellant was informed that all leave of Shri S. P. Labhane was sanctioned and consequently there was no loss of pay.
6. The RTI application dated 8.11.2013 (File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000486), sought information, for the period 2008 to 2013, regarding some payments made by the bank to CIC/SH/A/2014/000457 the Appellant. The Appellant submitted that his salary for some period of service was paid by the Respondents pursuant to an order of the CIC. However, correct payments have not been made and he sought information concerning those payments in the above mentioned RTI application. It is seen from the application that the Appellant has raised queries such as "how and why the concerned authority provided and furnished the incorrect, misleading, bogus and false information" and why salary for a certain period was not paid even though leave had been debited for the said period in the leave register. We note that in his reply dated 10.12.2013, the CPIO informed the Appellant that the information sought by him regarding his leave, arrears, salary and account statement had already been furnished to him.
7. The RTI application 19.11.2013 (File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000525), sought information regarding the date of receipt of an RTI application of the Appellant. The CPIO responded on 17.12.2013 and stated that the above application was received on 9.10.2013. The Appellant stated that records of the postal authorities show that it was received by the Respondents on 3.10.2013.
8. The RTI application dated 18.3.2014 (File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/001946) sought justification and reasons for the delay on the part of the Respondents in filing a reply/ CIC/SH/A/2014/000457 failure to file a reply to the High Court in response to a petition filed by the Appellant. In his response dated 10.6.2014, the CPIO stated that the matter was before the High Court and the bank had already filed its reply / defence in the same.
9. In the RTI application dated 13.3.2014 (File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/001947), the Appellant sought information, for the period 2006 to 2014, regarding copies of the office notes and letters of revocation of suspension in the trap cases by CBI/ACB under Prevention of Corruption Act, including information regarding the grounds for revocation of suspension etc. The Appellant stated that the CIC had ordered provision of similar information in response to an earlier RTI application filed by him and the bank did not provide the requisite information in that case. He was informed that the matter concerning compliance with the relevant CIC order was not before us today.
10. In the RTI application dated 15.3.2014 (File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/001948), the Appellant sought information about the action taken by the Respondents on a complaint made by him to DPG (Cabinet Secretariat) and copies of related documents. The Appellant submitted that the above complaint was regarding various instances of corruption and irregularities in the bank. The CPIO, Nagpur informed him that the Nagpur office did not have information regarding the action taken by the top management of the bank. We have considered the records placed before us and note that the response of CIC/SH/A/2014/000457 the Respondents to DPG (Cabinet Secretariat) may contain information regarding third parties, both customers of the bank and action taken, if any, against its officials. Therefore, we direct the CPIO, Nagpur to obtain from the concerned office of the bank and convey to the Appellant a gist of its findings conveyed by the bank to DPG (Cabinet Secretariat) in respect of the above complaint. The gist so conveyed should not contain personal information of any third parties. The CPIO is further directed to comply with our above directive, within thirty days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
11. In the RTI application dated 20.2.2014 (File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/001454), the Appellant sought justification and reasons for the bank not taking stricter action against corrupt officials. Information was sought specifically in respect of action taken against Shri B. Meshram. In his reply, the CPIO denied copies of the disciplinary authority reports under Section 8 (1) (j) and further stated that the Appellant could not seek justification / reasons for an order passed by the disciplinary authority.
12. In the RTI application dated 12.4.2014 (File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/001943), the Appellant sought information regarding action taken against the employees of the bank in connection with an alleged scam at the Igatpuri Branch. In his reply dated 25.4.2014, the CPIO denied the information under Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. CIC/SH/A/2014/000457
13. The RTI application dated 24.3.2014 (File No. CIC/SG/A/2014/001944) sought information regarding the leave and pay of Shri S. P. Labhane for the leave period. This query is similar to the query in the RTI application dated 11.10.2013 on File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000458. In his reply dated 22.4.2014, the CPIO sought exemption from disclosure of information under Section 8 (1) (j). However, as stated in paragraph 5 above, the Respondents submitted during the hearing that the Appellant was informed in response to one of his applications that the leave of Shri Labhane was sanctioned and there was no loss of pay.
14. In the RTI application dated 4.10.2013 (File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000456), the Appellant sought information in respect of the posting of Chief Manager, Shri S. P. Labhane, at Dena Bank, Zonal Office Nagpur as DRM "without reporting at first transferred order/ place at Junction Plot Branch of Rajkot Region." (sic) He sought information, inter alia, regarding the personal problems and medical grounds of Shri Labhane and another employee, Shri P. C. Meshram, based on which their requests regarding transfer issues were considered.
15. In the RTI application dated 1.5.2014 (File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/001945), the Appellant enquired whether Shri R. V. Mali and Shri Shreedharan, officers of the bank, CIC/SH/A/2014/000457 were involved in any irregularities / frauds / corruption during the period 2008 to 2014 and information concerning investigations conducted into such irregularities. In his reply dated 19.5.2014 the CPIO denied the information, inter alia, on the ground that it pertained to a third party.
16. In the RTI application dated 11.3.2014 (File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/001949), the Appellant sought reasons why the concerned officer failed to provide documents and replies in response to an earlier RTI application dated 11.10.2013, seeking information regarding the absence from duty of Shri S. P. Labhane.
17. The RTI application dated 26.7.2014 (File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/002927), sought information regarding whether the bank official Pritam V. Nagarkar was involved in any irregularities / frauds / corruption during his entire service period and whether action was taken against him concerning such irregularities. The information was denied by the CPIO.
18. In his second appeals, the Appellant has stated that he is not satisfied with the replies of the Respondents and in some cases, it has been stated that information was not provided within the timeframe laid down in the RTI Act.
CIC/SH/A/2014/000457
19. The queries in the Appellant's RTI applications fall essentially in two categories: (i) queries in the nature of seeking reasons, explanation and justification for certain actions of the public authority. Thus, in one case, he has sought the justification / reason for the delay on the part of the Respondents in filing a reply in a case in the High Court. In yet another case, he has sought explanation concerning certain payments made to him. (ii) Queries regarding the service matters concerning certain other employees of the bank, including action taken against them in regard to alleged cases of irregularities / frauds and CBI trap cases etc.
20. In the above context, we note that the queries in the nature of seeking justification, reasons, explanations from the public authority do not fall within the ambit of information as defined in Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.
21. The Appellant submitted during the hearing that he was removed from the service of the bank and believes that the punishment meted out to him was not warranted and that some other employees who, he maintains, were involved in serious cases of irregularities / frauds, were let off lightly. Therefore, he has sought information regarding action taken by the bank against the guilty in certain alleged cases of frauds. In one case, he has also alleged that an officer was paid his salary in spite of his having remained CIC/SH/A/2014/000457 absent from duty. In the above context, we note the following observations made by the Supreme Court in its decision dated 3.10.2012 in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors. [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012]: "We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right." The Respondents submitted that the Appellant has filed a writ petition against his removal from service and the matter is pending in the Nagpur bench of the Mumbai High Court. In support of his requests for information, concerning service matters of and action against CIC/SH/A/2014/000457 other employees of the bank, the Appellant stated that he has sought information regarding cases of frauds involving public money and it ought to be provided to him. He also stated that the bank's stand in denying him information, concerning action taken against some employees of the bank, on the ground that this information pertains to third parties, is not correct. He further stated that since he was an employee of the Respondent Bank and is seeking information concerning action taken against some other employees of the same bank, they cannot be regarded as third parties. We are not in agreement with this argument of the Appellant because Section 2 (n) of the RTI Act states: "third party" means a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a public authority." The Appellant has clearly not established any larger public interest for disclosure to him of the information concerning third parties, including action taken by the bank against them.
22. In the light of the foregoing, we find no merit in the appeals of the Appellant, other than the one concerning the RTI application dated 15.3.2014 on File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/001948. Accordingly, the appeals on files other than File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/001948 are dismissed.
CIC/SH/A/2014/000457
23. While disposing of these cases, we note that the Appellant has filed a large number of RTI applications to the public authority. In addition to the appeals under consideration today, we considered ten appeals and one complaint filed by him last year. It is noted from the records of the Commission that he has filed second appeals in as many as forty six cases. The Appellant ought to realise that his grievance regarding his removal from the service of the bank cannot be addressed and resolved under the RTI Act. The multiple RTI applications filed by him place an avoidable burden on the public authority to respond to the same, without the potential to resolve his grievance. Further, as stated above, he has already taken up the matter of his removal from service in the Nagpur Bench of the Mumbai High Court, where it is pending. In the above context, we note that the Object of the RTI Act is to harmonise the conflicting public interests, that is, ensuring transparency to bring in accountability and containing corruption on the one hand, and at the same time ensure that the revelation of information, in actual practice, does not harm or adversely affect other public interests which include efficient functioning of the government. We would also like to recall to the Appellant the following observations of the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 9.8.2011 in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.: "The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption CIC/SH/A/2014/000457 and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counterproductive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the nonproductive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
24. The Appellant has also complained that replies to some of his RTI applications were not given in the prescribed timeframe. While hearing the Appellant's appeals last year, we frequently came across a complaint by him that his RTI applications were not responded to in time. He also complained that the CPIO backdated his replies to show that these were sent within the timeframe provided for in the RTI Act. The Respondents, on the other hand, maintained that the replies were sent in time. In view of the foregoing, in our order No. CIC/VS/A/2013/000807/SH, CIC/VS/A/2012/001365/SH and CIC/SH/A/2014/000457 CIC/VS/A/2013/001875/SH dated 20.5.2014, concerning three appeals of the same Appellant, we directed the CPIO to ensure that in future the replies of the Respondents to the Appellant are sent through a postal channel in which records of movement of letters are available for a subsequent reference, if necessary. In view of the foregoing and the multiple RTI applications filed by the Appellant, we would refrain from taking any further action in this regard, except for recalling to the CPIO his responsibility to ensure that all RTI applications are responded to strictly within the timeframe laid down in the RTI Act.
25. With the directions contained in paragraph 10 and the above observations, the fifteen appeals are disposed of.
26. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SH/A/2014/000457 CIC/SH/A/2014/000457