Central Information Commission
Mrvinod Kumar Jain vs Oriental Bank Of Commerce on 10 November, 2014
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/MP/A/2013/000042/SH
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 10th November 2014
Date of decision : 10th November 2014
Name of the Appellant : Shri Vinod Kumar Jain,
E202, Golden Star Apartments,
Mahadevapura, Near Hoodi Circle,
Bangalore 560048
Name of the Public : Central Public Information Officer,
Authority/Respondent Oriental Bank of Commerce,
RTI Cell, Head Office, Plot No. 5, 1st Floor, Sector 32, Institutional Area, Gurgaon 122001 The Appellant was present at the NIC Studio, Bangalore. On behalf of the Respondents, the following were present in person:
1. Shri M. K. Prasad, AGM.
2. Shri Dharmendra Prasad, Senior Manager.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 26.3.2013 filed by the Appellant, seeking copies of the entire files concerning him, maintained at the Personnel Department and the Disciplinary Action Department, containing all records and documents relating to his service and disciplinary action against him for the last ten years. The CPIO responded on 6.5.2013 and denied the information, inter alia, on the ground that the specific information required had not been mentioned. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority on 28.5.2013. In his order dated 5.7.2013, the FAA upheld the CPIO's reply. The Appellant filed second appeal dated 24.11.2013 to the CIC, which was received by the Commission on 2.12.2013.
2. We heard the submissions of the Appellant and the Respondents. The Appellant stated that the Respondents conducted disciplinary proceedings against him and there is also a CBI case, in which he has approached the High Court. He further submitted that he wants the information sought in his RTI application to defend himself.
3. The Respondents submitted that disciplinary proceedings were conducted against the Appellant twice, in 2011 and 2012. The first proceeding resulted in stoppage of four increments. The second proceeding resulted in termination of the services of the Appellant. They further submitted that the CBI had also filed a case against the Appellant. His trial by a CBI court has resulted in his conviction and sentencing to rigorous imprisonment for four years. The Appellant has approached the High Court against the above mentioned order of the CBI Court. The Respondents stated that the information sought by the Appellant is very voluminous and it would be impractical to provide him photocopies of the files running into hundreds of pages. They further submitted that since the matter is in the High Court, disclosure of the information sought by the Appellant could impede the court proceedings.
4. We have considered the records and the submissions made by both the parties before us. We note that the records sought by the Appellant would be indeed voluminous. At the same time, since the process of prosecution in the CBI Court is over, we see no ground to invoke Section 8 (1) (h) to deny the information sought by the Appellant. The Respondents have not established as to how the disclosure of the information in question would impede the proceedings in the High Court.
5. In the light of the foregoing, we direct the CPIO to facilitate inspection by the Appellant of the records, mentioned in the RTI application, on a mutually convenient date and time, within thirty days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. After such inspection, the Appellant should be given photocopies of up to fifty pages of the inspected records, desired by him, free of cost. Photocopies required by him beyond the above number should be given to him on payment of the prescribed photocopying charges.
6. With the above directions, the appeal is disposed of.
7. 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