Central Information Commission
.Bipinchandramehta vs Union Bank Of India on 17 January, 2013
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CLUB BUILDING (NEAR POST OFFICE)
OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI110 067
TEL: 01126179548
Decision No.CIC/SM/A/2011/902922/VS/01836
Appeal No.CIC/SM/A/2011/902922/VS
Dated: 17.01.2013
Appellant: Shri Bipinchandra Mehta,
R/o A/801, Bhardwaj, Saptarshi Park,
Near Swapna Nagari, Off. Bal Rajeshwar
Road,
Mulund (West), Mumbai 400 080.
Respondent: Public Information Officer,
General Manager (LSD),
Union Bank of India,
14th Floor, Central Office,
239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg,
Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021.
Date of Hearing: 17.1.2013
ORDER
RTI application:
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 08.06.2011 seeking information and certain details pertaining to M/S Star Scrap Recycling Industry.
2. The PIO responded on 24.06.2011 and provided the appellant information relating to performance linked comprehensive cash incentive scheme. The appellant filed a first appeal on 02.07.2011 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 03.08.2011.
The appellant filed a second appeal on 20.12.2012 with the Commission. Hearing:
3. The appellant and the respondent both participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The appellant stated that he wanted to know the selfappraisal norms and the criteria for the payment of cash incentives to the bank employees.
5. The respondent stated that a response has already been sent to the appellant on 24.06.2011 but the appellant is seeking not only his marks but the marks of the others. The respondent further stated that it will not be possible to provide the marks of others under the exemption from disclosure clauses of the RTI Act. It was explained by the respondent that the appellant wants to make an assessment on the basis of the selfappraisal reports of others whether they have been addressed correctly by the bank in terms of the marks given. The respondent said that selfappraisal of other employees cannot be provided under the confidentiality clauses of the RTI Act.
6. It emerged during the hearing that the crux of the matter is as stated by the appellant that he wanted to know the appraisal marks of the other candidates who got the cash incentive, to enable the appellant to compare his marks with others. The hearing was informed that the first appellate authority has already passed an order on the matter dated 23.09.2011. It emerged that the order of the first appellate authority is not available on the Commission's file. The respondent stated that the order of the first appellate authority dated 23.09.2011 would be complied with as this would meet the requirements of the appellant.
Decision:
7.The respondent is directed to comply with the order of first appellate authority.
The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer