Central Information Commission
Sundarapalli Mehar Baba vs State Bank Of India on 28 February, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2024/608701
Sundarapalli Mehar Baba ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: State Bank of India,
Hyderabad ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 16.12.2023 FA : 04.02.2024 SA : 28.02.2024
CPIO : 08.01.2024 FAO : 17.02.2024 Hearing : 27.02.2025
Date of Decision: 27.02.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.12.2023 seeking information on the following points:
I was awarded punishment of removal from service vide final order No. DMHUB(S)/AMA/KNR/2021-22/1318, dated 21/08/2021 issued by disciplinary authority, discipline management hub (south) Chennai. The following reasons are furnished here under which are mentioned in page no.15 of final order, while terminating me from bank service.Page 1 of 6
1) In some cases, borrower's loan proceeds were credited into suppliers / intermediaries accounts and CSO's (charge sheet official) accounts received credits from these intermediaries accounts.
2) Misappropriated public/customers money for personal gain.
3) In violation of bank's instructions resulting in financial and reputational loss to the bank.
The above said reasons furnished in final order are not furnished in charge sheet which served me on 21.07.2020.
Now I request you to provide me the following information under Right to Information Act-2005 as per reasons mentioned in page no.15 of final order copy.
1) In some cases, borrower's loan proceeds were credited into suppliers / intermediaries accounts and CSO's accounts received credits from these intermediaries accounts.
a) Names and account numbers of borrowers whose loan proceeds are credited to CSO accounts (my accounts).
b) How much of loan amounts involved/credited to CSO accounts through suppliers/intermediaries.
c) Account numbers of CSO in which borrowers loan proceeds are credited.
d) Names and account numbers of suppliers/intermediaries accounts.
e) Date of sanction of those loan accounts.
..., etc./ other related information
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 08.01.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
Response to Query No.1(a, b, c, d): The detailed information is provided hereunder:Page 2 of 6
Sl. No. Date of Amount From Name of the Account To Account Credit (Rs) Account No Holder (Sri S Mehar Baba) 1 13.10.2017 100000 *******9255 Sri Venkateswara *******3046 Poultry 2 03.04.2018 100000 *******8799 R Ratnakar *******3048 3 06.01.2018 100000 *******0067 ASP Engineering *******5770 Services 4 12.01.2018 48000 *******7977 P Ananda Swaroop *******5770 5 28.05.2018 400000 *******7977 P Ananda Swaroop *******5770 6 11.06.2018 170000 *******7977 P Ananda Swaroop *******5770 The above details are already provided to you vide charge sheet No. FIMM/VIG/10 dated 21.07 2020 and the same was acknowledged by you on 30.07.2020.
Response to Query No.1(e): The accounts are Saving Bank accounts and therefore, there is no date of sanction. ..Etc.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.02.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 17.02.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 28.02.2024.
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. L.P Rajshekhar, CPIO, attended the hearing through video conference.
Page 3 of 66. The appellant reiterated the background of the RTI application and submitted that the name of the borrower has not been provided by the respondent from whose account the amount is credited to his account. He stated that the information provided by the respondent is incorrect. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information as sought.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that all available information has been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 08.01.2024. He clarified that borrower's names and account number available have been provided. Additionally, the information sought on point no. 1 (h, i, j) of the RTI application related to third- parties, disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest, hence, exemption under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act has been sought. Further, the queries raised by the appellant on point nos. 2 (a, b, c & d) and 3. (b & c) are not covered within the definition of "information" under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act vide letter dated 08.01.2024. The perusal of records further reveals that on point nos. 2 (a, b, c & d) and 3. (b & c) of the RTI application, the appellant has sought clarification and opinion, which do not fall within the definition of "information" as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the appellant is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education &Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011] date of judgment 09.08.2011. The following was thus held:
"....A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority......."Page 4 of 6
9. Further, on point no. 1 (h, i, j), the appellant has also sought for the personal information of third parties, disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Hence, the CPIO correctly denied the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & amp; Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
10. Furthermore, during the hearing, the appellant is challenging the correctness of the information provided by the CPIO which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the appellant is also drawn towards a judgment of Page 5 of 6 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its decision dated 06.12.2023 in Narendra Tyagi vs Assistant Director (CPIO) [LPA 764/2023]. The following was thus held:
"13. Consequently, it is clear that dispute as regards the correctness of information provided under the RTI Act, or any other dispute or controversy, cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under the RTI Act. The CPIO is only required to supply all the information/documents within his access. Whether or not such information as provided by the CPIO under the RTI Act is incorrect in any manner, is not the domain of consideration or determination under the RTI proceedings."
11. In view of the above and in the absence of the larger public interest, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 27.02.2025 Authenticated true copy Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO State Bank of India, Premises & Estate Department, Amaravati Local Head Office, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500001 2 Sundarapalli Mehar Baba Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)