Ashok Kumar Pandya vs Bank Of India on 28 January, 2021

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Ashok Kumar Pandya vs Bank Of India on 28 January, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 23.01.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 07.08.2018 and first appeal dated 03.10.2018:-

 Provide following information in respect of LTC availed during January 2011 to December 2015 by officers of the bank, namely Shri J. P. Parwani, Shri Santosh K Bharvgav, Shri Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Shri Brijesh R Patel, Shri S. K. Kundar, Shri S. C. Shah, Shri H. M. Parmar, Shri G. G. Joshi, Shri V. A. Chaudhari, Shri G. R. Rana, Shri Nalinkant C. Gilder, Shri Bishwanath Sarkar and Shri P. S. Jadega.

Page 1 of 5

(i) Scale, Destination, Number of tickets claimed, amount per ticket sanctioned and total claim sanctioned.

(ii) Whether the concerned officers granted permission for visiting abroad while availing LTC? If, yes, provide copy of such sanction.

(iii) Copy of the request letter for advance payment and copy of the application for reimbursement of LTC with attachments submitted therewith including certificate for fare issued by AIR India.

(iv) Copy of the tickets showing fare and boarding pass for reimbursement of LTC claimed.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 07.08.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of India, Ahmadabad Zone, Ahmadabad, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 15.09.2018 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with this, the appellant filed first appeal dated 03.10.2018. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 31.10.2018 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 23.01.2019 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 23.01.2019 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO and the FAA was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action against the CPIO & FAA as per Section 20 (1) & (2) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 15.09.2018 replied that information sought would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority from its day-to-day work and also the appellant had not established any larger public interest for disclosure of information. The CPIO also replied that earlier also the appellant had sought similar information vide his RTI application dated 27.11.2013 and in compliance of the CIC's order dated 28.05.2015, they had replied to the appellant vide their letter dated 31.07.2018. The FAA vide order dated 31.10.2018 agreed with the views taken by the CPIO.

Page 2 of 5

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri S Kumarabel, Chief Manager(Law), Bank of India, Ahmedabad, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that information sought pertained to LTC availed by 13 officers of Bank of India during January 2011 to December 2015 namely amount paid to from public exchequer towards LTC, permission to visit abroad while availing LTC, fare certificate issued by Air India, tickets and boarding pass etc. However, the CPIO and the FAA arbitrarily denied the information in terms of section 7 (9) of the RTI Act. He informed that similar information sought by him was provided by other public authority. Further, he argued that there was massive racket of claiming/approving/sanctioning journey by circuitous long route involving foreign travel instead of entitled shortest route by producing fraudulent/inflated/exorbitant tickets fraudulently issued by Travel Agents instead of direct airlines tickets along with invalid Air India Certificate.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that information sought by the appellant was voluminous in nature and scattered in different files, compilation of the same would disproportionately divert the resources of the bank from its day-to-day work. Moreover, the appellant had not established any larger public interest for disclosure of such information, hence, they expressed their inability to provide the information under section 7 (9) of the RTI Act. Besides, they also contended that information sought was personal information of third parties, disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest. Hence, the same was exempted under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observes that information sought has not been provided by the respondent. The respondent during the course of hearing submitted that the appellant sought information pertained to LTC availed by 13 officers of Bank of India during January 2011 to December 2015 which was scattered in various files and collection of the same would divert the resources of the bank. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision in Central Board of Secondary Education and another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others, (2011) 8 SCC497 made the following observations:

"67. Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under the RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and Page 3 of 5 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 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 public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."

In view of this, there appears to be no infirmity with the reply given by the respondent. Further, it may not be out of place to mention that the transparency values have to be reconciled with legal interest protected by law, such as other fundamental rights, particularly the fundamental right to privacy. Further, the appellant has not brought out any larger public interest warranting the disclosure of the information. There appears to be no public interest in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 28.01.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. BANK OF INDIA AHMEDABAD ZONE, 6TH FLOOR, BANK OF INDIA BUILDING, BHADRA, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT - 380 001 THE F.A.A, BANK OF INDIA, AHMEDABAD ZONE, 6TH FLOOR, BANK OF INDIA BUILDING, BHADRA, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT -380 001 Ashok Kumar Pandya Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission