Central Information Commission
Ashok Gupta vs Punjab & Sind Bank on 6 December, 2018
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/PASBK/A/2017/170938
Ashok Gupta ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Punjab & Sind Bank ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Zonal Office Delhi-1, New Delhi
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI :28.04.2017 FA :23.06.2017 SA : 29.09.2017
CPIO :20.05.2017 and
FAO :24.07.2017 Hearing: 30.11.2018
08.08.2017
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab & Sind Bank, Zonal Office-1, New Delhi, seeking information on four points pertaining to his company's account no. 0388xxxxxxx88, including, inter-alia (i) details of credit entry in the company's account on 29.06.2016 for Rs.4,16,791.76 stated to have been 'Reversal of Penal Interest Due to Non-Renewal- specific year for Page 1 of 5 which the penal interest for this non-renewal has been reversed by the bank, and
(ii) a copy of file notings/observations/justifications/comment sheet/process sheet for the bank having to undergo this reversal of penal interest thereby debiting the income of the bank by Rs.4,16,791.76 and wrongly charging this interest in the first place.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO denied information misquoting Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, the CPIO did not provide complete information, despite order of the FAA, thereby violating the provisions and the spirit of the RTI Act. The appellant requested the Commission to penalize the CPIO for defying the provisions of the RTI Act.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Ashok Gupta was represented through Advocate, Shri Gulshan Sharma and Shri S.K. Sharma. The respondents Shri Anil Kumar, Chief Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Zonal Office Delhi, Shri Rizwan Khan, Officer and Shri Jaswant Singh, Officer were present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that the information sought vide point nos. 1 and 3 of the RTI application was provided by the respondent in compliance of the FAA's order dated 24.07.2017. However, a copy of the file notings/observations/ justifications/comment sheet/process sheet for the bank having to undergo reversal of penal interest was denied without quoting any sections of the RTI Act.
5. The respondent submitted that the file notings/observations/justifications/ comment sheet/process sheet are internal documents of the bank, the disclosure of Page 2 of 5 which would harm the competitive position of the bank. Further, the observation/comments of the employees submitted to their higher authorities are confidential in nature and are held in a fiduciary capacity and hence, it cannot be disclosed.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the appellant has sought for the file notings/observations/justifications/comment sheet/process sheet pertaining to reversal of penal interest charged upon the appellant's company. This information cannot be considered as intellectual property of the bank, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of the third party concerned. Further, the observation/comments of the employees cannot be considered to be held in a fiduciary capacity. In this regard, the Commission notes that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its decision dated 09.11.2012 [Union of India & Ors. vs. Col. V K Shad-WP(C) No. 499/2012] has held as under:
"20.2 ......Thus, the term fiduciary applies, it appears, to a person who enjoys peculiar confidence qua other persons. The relationship mandates fair dealing and good faith, not necessarily borne out of a legal obligation. It also permeates to transactions, which are informal in nature.
20.3. .......As a matter of fact, the person who generates the note or renders an opinion is presumed to be a person who is objective and not conflicted by virtue of his interest in the matter, on which, he is called upon to deliberate. If that position holds, then it can neither be argued nor can it be conceived Page 3 of 5 that notes on file or opinions rendered in an institutional setup by one officer qua the working or conduct of another officer brings forth a fiduciary relationship. It is also not a relationship of the kind where both parties required the other to act in a fiduciary capacity by treating the other as a beneficiary....."
7. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO, Punjab & Sind Bank, Zonal Office, Delhi to provide the information sought for, after severing information which relates to commercial confidence, or personal information of third parties, the disclosure of which is exempted under Section 8(1)(d) or (j) of the RTI Act, to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भाग व) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date:05.12.2018 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोिह ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105682 / [email protected] Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:
1. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab & Sind Bank, Zonal Office, Delhi-1, Commercial Complex, Sidhartha Enclave, Near Ashram Chowk, New Delhi-110014.
2. Shri Ashok Gupta, Page 5 of 5