Central Information Commission
Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs State Bank Of India on 18 August, 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/SBIND/A/2022/633347
Rajesh Kumar Gupta ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. The CPIO,
Dy. General Manager, State Bank
of India, RTI Cell, Central Recruitment
and Promotion Department , Corporate
Centre, Atlanta Building, 3rd Floor,
Nariman Point,
Mumbai-400021, MH
2. The CPIO,
Dy. GM (CMD), State Bank of
India, RTI Cell, Corporate Centre,
State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama
Road, Mumbai- 400021, MH.
3. The CPIO,
Dy. GM (CD&S), State Bank of
India, RTI Cell, Corporate
Centre, 16th Floor, State Bank
Bhawan, Madame Cama Road,
Mumbai-400021, MH. .... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 17/08/2023
Date of Decision : 17/08/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
1
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11/05/2022
CPIO replied on : 19/05/2022
First appeal filed on : 22/05/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 13/06/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.05.2022 seeking the following information:
"Please provide me the following information which involves the larger public interest and satisfied the criteria of larger public interest, as enumerated in the Act.
1. The following information may please be provided under format pertains to candidates under SMGS-IV and eligible/selected for promotion year 2021-22 & 2022-23 for SMGS-V (under weightage of 60% CDS score) i.e., best 3 out of 4 for 2021-22 & 4 out of 5 years for 2022-23 as per promotion policy.2 3
"P"4
Process and basis of awarding marks to individual candidate under 5 categories of PAF by the PAC who otherwise is not directly monitoring the 5 parameters of PAFs (10% of total 100 marks) of individual candidate eligible for promotions, as per administrative structure of bank or it was given in proportionate to KRA score of individual candidates.
"Q"
No, of circle/vertical wise, finally selected candidates for promotion to SMGS-V in the promotion year 2021-22 & 2022- 23who have been assigned higher score by the PAC by superseding the KRA score of other higher-grade officers.
"R' Process and basis of recommendations of names of candidates for promotions to SMGS-V by the regional level/Module level/ Network/vertical level (officially/ unofficially). If yes then please provide details of circle/vertical wise number of such candidates recommended to PAC (by superseding high KRA Score candidates) for preparing the PAF for next promotion by the PAC accordingly, whose names are reflected under the ZOS and got promoted in the promotion year 2021-22 & 2022-23.
"S"
The circle CMCs/ committee at CCEs of any vertical is empowered to upgrade the CDS score (system calculated) up to maximum grade i.e., AAA of employees before PAF. Please provide the followings:
i) Circle/vertical wise, no. of officers whose CDS grades have been upgraded by the CMCs/ Committee at CCEs while exercising the powers delegated as mentioned above "S", during the promotion year 2021-22 & 2022-23 under SMGS-IV to SMGS-V.
ii) Out of i) above, number of officers, circle/vertical wise declared finally selected in the promotions for SMGS-IV to V during the promotion year 2021-22 & 2022-23.
iii) Process and criterion of selection of such candidates to upgrade the CDS grade of officers under the channel as mentioned above "S", while sidelining the actual system-based performance.
iv) Number of such officers (as mentioned at serial no. 1("S (i) ") above, including scale III to scale V, who have been given the performance linked incentives as declared by the bank for the year 2020-21 and quantum of 5 circle wise total amount involved on account of up gradation of CDS grades but otherwise not eligible due to their lower KRA score or less incentives under grade of AA.
"T"
Roll wise average CDS grade (Best 3 out of 4 & best 4 out of 5 as the case may be) of candidates who promoted to SMGS-V for promotion year 2021-22, 2022-23
a) Out of 2 above the no. of officers (who were given back dated promotions due to non-completion of mandatory assignment, pendency of disciplinary proceedings etc.) (Promotion Year).
63. Compliance level of section 4 (2) b(1) of RTI Act & compliance to orders of Hon'ble Supreme court of India in the case "Dev Dutt Vs Union of India (2008) 8 SCC725 AIR 2008 Sc 2513 dated 12105/2008, to made availability the CDS score given by Repa and reviewed by Reva & PAF scores to candidates individually and automatically (system based access to individual candidates to peruse/view their Repa/Reva/PAF score (without specific request or RTI).
4. Please provide my following personal information (Emp Id 5357810 of Rajesh Kumar Gupta)
a) KRA score calculated by the system for the year 2017-18.
b) Discretionary score (not grade) along with the remarks given by Repa and reviewed by Reva for the year 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-
22.
c) Please provide the information that the Repa/Reva has perused the Self appraisal & CDS scores, of above named before awarding discretionary score for the year 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21,2021-22.
d) Please provide the Certificates from the concerned authority i.e. Repa/Reva certifying that they have actually perused the self-appraisal &CDS score, before awarding discretionary scores for the year 2018-19 to 2021-22.
e) Please provide the information on negative score if any awarded by Repa for the promotion year 2021-22 & 2022-23 along with the supporting documents for negative scores.
f) Please provide the information on degrading or upgrading the grade, if any by Reva for the year 2020-21 2021-22 along with the documentary evidence for degrading the grade.
g) Under Sanjivani reg. No. GRI202200004605, Level-2 dosed the grievance by coping and pasting the same remarks given by Repa/level-1, as his 7 closing remarks, without going through the facts provided by the aggrieved. Please provide the information circle/ vertical wise for 2021-22, the no. of such cases who challenged the CDS grade to Sanjivani and Level-2 has closed the grievance by copying and pasting the same closure remarks given by Level-1.
h) Individual parameter wise (Total 5 for 2022-23) score given under PAF by the PAC for the promotion year 2021-22 & 2022-23.
i) Copies of promotion policy prevalent in the promotion years 2021-22 & 2022-23.
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 19.05.2022 stating as under:
"1. A, B, C, D, 1, 2, 3, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, 2, T, U, 5 and 6 This information is not maintained in the desired format and therefore needs collation which will involve disproportionate use of scarce organizational resources to compile the information which are exempted from disclosure under section 7 9 of Right to Information Act 2005.
L S.1 3 and 4 U. i and ii and U.4) Transfer to Career Development System Corporate Centre, Mumbai.
2.a Transfer to Cadre Management Department Corporate Centre Mumbai.8
U.2 3 years back dated promotions 2021-22 NIL 2022 23 NIL 2 years back dated promotions 2021-22 3 2022 23 NIL 1 year back dated promotions 2021-22 4 2022 23 2 U.3 No Information Sought.
U.4 i Information sought is available in SBI Times E Circular."
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply for point no. 2(a) and 4 (i) to the appellant on 08.06.2022 stating as under:
"Query No. 2(a):
The information is not compiled by the Bank centrally 1 in its usual course of business and the CPIO may have to collect and collate the information from various offices of the Bank which may disproportionately divert the resources of the Bank Hence, denied u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act Query No. 4(i):
Please refer e-Circular nos CDO/P&HRD-CM/92/2021-22 dated 21.01.2022. CDO/P&HRD-CDS/7/2021-22 dated 27.04.2021, CDO/P&HRD-CDS/97/2020- 21 dated 26.03.2021 and CDO/P&HRD-CDS/76/2018-19 dated 07.01 2019 for information sought, which is available at SBI Times>Latest information>e-Circular>P&HRD by log-in through ADS credentials."
Further, the CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 08.06.2022 stating as under:
"'I"
The requested information is not maintained in the desired format and requires collection and collation of data. Such collection and collation may disproportionately divert the resources of the bank and hence denied u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act.
"S (i):
The requested information is not maintained in the desired format and requires collection and collation of data. Such collection and collation may disproportionately divert the resources of the bank and hence denied u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act.
S (iii) & (iv):
The requested information is based on assumption and in the nature of seeking opinion hence does not fall under the purview of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.9
U (i) & (ii):
The requested information is based on assumption and in the nature of seeking opinion hence does not fall under the purview of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Point 4 (a):
As per instructions vide CDS master circular no. COO/P&HRD-CDS/84/2017-18 dated 11.01.2018, the KRA scores will be visible to the employees in HRMS for budgetary roles.
Point 4 (b):
The information sought is exempt under 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act.
Point 4 (c) & (d):
The requested information is based on assumption and in the nature of seeking opinion hence does not fall under the purview of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Point 4 (e) & (f):
The discretionary score & comments will not be visible to the employees irrespective of the role type i.e., Budgetary/measrurable/non-measurable.
Point 4(g):
The requested information is based on assumption and in the nature of seeking opinion hence does not fall under the purview of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Point 4 (h):
The information sought is exempt under 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act.
Point 4 (i):
Matter is connected with the area of CPIO & DGM (CMD), SBI Corporate centre, mumbai."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.05.2022. FAA's order, dated 13.06.2022, held as under:
"In the instant case it is observed that the CPIO has replied online on 19.05.2022 and provided information on query no. (U.2), (U.3) & (U.4) of the RTI application of Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta dated 11.05.2022. In respect of query no. (A), (B), (C), (D.1.2.3), (E), (F), (6), (K), (I), (7), (K), (1,4), (N), (0), (3), (Q), (R), (S,2), 10 (T), (U.S) and (U.6) CPIO has sought exemption under section 7(9) of RTI Act 2005.
I agree with the reply given by the CPIO.
It is also observed that query no. (L), (S.1, S.3 & S.4), (U.4) are transferred to Career Development System and query no. (2.a) is transferred to Cadre Management Department, Corporate Centre, Mumbai for furnishing information on 19.05.2022 for which appellant will receive Information from concerned department within time limit as prescribed in RTI Act 2005."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference. Respondent: Shashi Bhushan Chaudhary, DGM & CPIO along with Anita Pacharne, Chief Manager (Law) present through video-conference.
The written submission filed by the CPIO prior to the hearing is taken on record.
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved with the fact that complete desired information pertaining to transfer/ promotion policy of SBI employees has not been provided to him till date.
The Rep. of CPIO submitted that the information sought by the Appellant in a prescribed tabular manner itself appears to be voluminous in nature, collation and compilation of which would entail the diversion of resources of the Respondent Public Authority; and thus, hit by Section 7(9) of RTI Act. Nonetheless, in the spirit of RTI Act, CPIO has made every possible effort to provide relevant available information point wise to the Appellant.
The Appellant again contested the alleged inaction of the SBI in not furnishing complete specific details of promotion policy. In response to which, the CPIO submitted that even otherwise, the transfer/promotion policy can be easily accessed from their Website as well.
Decision:11
The Commission at the outset observes from a perusal of the facts on record that the information sought for in the RTI Application is extremely unspecific/cumbersome in nature and does not even conform to the word limit of 500 as prescribed in Rule 3 of RTI Rules, 2012 and to the definition of information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has largely expressed his grievance and sought for information on that basis which cannot be appreciated or comprehended.
From the standpoint of the RTI Act, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply provided by the CPIO to the instant RTI Application and the Commission is at a loss to comprehend the relief or the action that is being desired by the Appellant through the said appeal.
Even if, the Commission was to empathetically consider the concerns raised by the Appellant during the hearing, he is reminded of the fact that his right to information is far from being absolute and unconditional. That, it is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions has to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality, a notion well recognised by the superior Courts in a catena of judgments such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
"37. 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 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 counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing 12 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."
However, in pursuance to clause 4 of hearing notice, the CPIO is directed to share a copy of his latest written submissions free of charge with the Appellant immediately upon receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 13