Central Information Commission
Avinash Agarwal vs Indian Overseas Bank on 28 March, 2017
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/IOVBK/A/2016/311894, CIC/SH/C/2016/000236, CIC/IOVBK/A/2016/311892,
CIC/SH/C/2016/000237, CIC/SH/A/2016/000776, CIC/SH/C/2016/000239,
CIC/SH/A/2016/000777, CIC/SH/C/2016/000246, CIC/SH/A/2016/000727,
CIC/SH/A/2016/000769, CIC/SH/A/2016/000770, CIC/SH/A/2016/000772,
CIC/SH/A/2016/000773, CIC/SH/A/2016/000774, CIC/SH/A/2016/000775,
CIC/IOVBK/A/2016/311893, CIC/IOVBK/A/2016/308628,
CIC/SH/C/2016/000235, CIC/SH/A/2016/000529, CIC/SH/A/2016/000530,
CIC/SH/A/2016/000531, CIC/SH/A/2016/000532, CIC/SH/A/2016/000533,
CIC/SH/A/2016/000720, CIC/SH/A/2016/000723, CIC/SH/A/2016/000724,
CIC/SH/A/2016/000725, CIC/SH/A/2016/000726 and CIC/SH/A/2016/000778
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (18)/(19)
Date of hearing : 24th March 2017
Date of decision : 24th March 2017
Name of the Appellant/ : SHRI AVINASH AGARWAL
Complainant
Name of the Public : 1.CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER,
Authority/Respondent INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK
REGIONAL OFFICE: 595, MALIK CHOWK, DEHRADUN, UTTARAKHAND
2. CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK CENTRAL OFFICE: P. B. NO.-3765, 763, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI, TAMILNADU- 600002 The Appellant/Complainant was present at the NIC studio, Haridwar. On behalf of the Respondents, the following were present:-
1) Shri S.K. Pradhan, Sr. R.M. was present at the NIC studio, Dehradun.
2) Shri S.K. Umesh, CPIO was present at the NIC studio, Chennai.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal 1 These files contain 24 appeals and 5 complaints in respect of the RTI applications dated 18.4.2016, 28.3.2016, 28.10.2015, 29.10.2015, 31.8.2015,
3.11.2015, 12.10.2015, 22.9.2015, 23.9.2015, 2.11.2015, 9.9.2015, 13.4.2016, 15.2.2016, 28.7.2015 (4 applications), 30.8.2015 (2 applications), 26.7.2015 (2 applications), 25.7.2015, 24.7.2015 (2 applications) and 30.11.2015 filed by the Appellant/Complainant, seeking information on various service issues from the bank. Not satisfied with the response of the Respondents, he has approached the CIC in appeals/complaints in all the cases.
2. At the outset of the hearing, making his general submissions, the Appellant/Complainant stated that he joined the service of the bank in May, 2013 and had requested for the change of place of his posting on medical grounds. However, his request was not accepted and he has been removed from the service of the bank w.e.f. 14.2.2017. Making their general submissions, the Respondents stated that after his joining the service, the Appellant/Complainant was sent to the bank office in Dehradun for six months at his request on temporary transfer, whereafter he was required to report at the bank office in Mysore. He did not join the duty at Mysore on grounds of certain medical requirements. He was directed to undergo medical examination by a Board. The Board opined that he could work at any station with reasonable medical facilities. Accordingly, he was again asked to join in Mysore, which he did not do. A charge-sheet was issued to him, charging him with unauthorised absence from duty. The Appellant/Complainant did not cooperate with the enquiry process and did not join duty. After following the enquiry procedure, he was removed from service w.e.f. 14.2.2017.
2
3. With regard to the RTI application dated 18.4.2016 (an appeal and a complaint registered on file Nos. 311894 and 236 respectively), the Appellant/Complainant stated that the information sought was regarding deposit of money into his NPS account. He claimed that the CPIO did not provide most of the information and gave false information in response to point No.4. The Respondents reiterated the point- wise reply dated 3.6.2016 of the CPIO. With regard to point No.4, they stated that correct answer was provided by the CPIO. When there is no credit in the NPS account of an employee for a period of six months, the account becomes dormant. Since the Appellant/Complainant was not drawing salary for the period of his unauthorised absence, no credit was made to his NPS account for a long period and the account had become dormant.
4. With regard to the RTI application dated 28.3.2016 (an appeal and a complaint registered on file Nos. 311892 and 237 respectively), the Appellant/Complainant stated that only four out of the ten queries of the RTI application were responded to. The Respondents, on the other hand, stated that the available information was provided and certain queries of the RTI application were in the nature of seeking an explanation from the CPIO.
5. In respect of the RTI application dated 28.10.2015 (an appeal and a complaint registered in file Nos. 776 and 239 respectively), the Appellant/Complainant stated that he had sought information regarding the marks awarded to various officers of the bank in APAR and it was denied by the CPIO, citing Section 7 (9) of the RTI Act. The Respondents reiterated their decision, stating that voluminous information had been sought in respect of marks awarded to all employees and it was not available in a 3 compiled form. The Appellant/Complainant cited the Kerala High Court judgment in Treesa Irish Vs. The CIC [W.P.(C) No. 6532 of 2006] to state that information cannot be denied u/s 7 (9) of the RTI Act. In regard to the above RTI application, we note that the information sought was regarding the number of employees given less than 75 marks by a particular reporting officer, the number of employees in respect of whom a particular officer functions as the reporting authority and how many employees were awarded less than 75 marks by her, in how many cases the officer concerned changed APAR marks and in how many cases she changed the marks to less than 75 etc.
6. In the RTI application dated 29.10.2015 (an appeal and a complaint registered on file Nos. 777 and 246), the information sought was regarding statement of tax deduction from the Appellant/Complainant. The Appellant/Complainant stated that he was not provided a correct/certified Form 16. The Respondents reiterated that a certified Form 16, containing the necessary details, was provided to the Appellant/Complainant on 26.11.2015. Nonetheless, the Appellant/Complainant stated that correct information was not provided and since the queries of RTI application dated 29.10.2015 pre-dated 26.11.2015, the same must be answered.
7. In regard to the RTI application 31.8.2015 (file No. 727), the Appellant submitted that this too was regarding provision of Form 16 to him. He reiterated his submissions mentioned in the preceding paragraph and the Respondents also reiterated their submissions, contained in the preceding paragraph. 4
8. In the RTI application dated 3.11.2015 (file No. 769), the Appellant had sought information on sixteen points regarding the transfers of employees of Dehradun and Mysore Regions during the years 2013, 2014 and 2015. The information sought was under various points such as how many transfers were on the basis of requests of employees, how many were deputed or temporarily transferred etc. The Appellant again questioned the decision of the Respondents to deny the information, citing Section 7 (9) of the RTI Act. The Respondents stated that the Appellant had sought elaborate information, which was not available in a compiled form.
9. In the application dated 12.10.2015 (file No. 770), the Appellant had sought information regarding the number of employees, who were rewarded with excellent remark, but were given APAR/ACR marks below 75 since 2013 and the same information concerning employees of the Dehradun Region. The Appellant stated that the above information has not been provided to him, while the Respondents stated that the information sought is not maintained by them in a compiled form. In response to our query, they stated that the bank has over 14,000 employees all over India, out of whom around 10,000 are in the officer grade.
10. In the RTI application dated 22.9.2015 (file No. 772), the Appellant had sought information under nine points regarding the employees transferred throughout the bank in the years 2013, 2014 and 2015. The two parties reiterated their submissions, mentioned in paragraph 8 above, in regard to similar information sought in that case.
11. The RTI application dated 23.9.2015 (file No. 773) sought information on six points regarding non-credit of salary arrears to the Appellant's account. The Appellant stated that the information was not provided. The Respondents stated that 5 salary arrears, due to all employees, were credited to their accounts in a phased manner - in the first phase, credits were made to the accounts of serving employees and thereafter to the accounts of retired and absent employees. The Appellant, however, continued to complain that there was delay in credit of his salary arrears.
12. In regard to the RTI application dated 2.11.2015 (file No. 774), the Appellant stated that he was described as a defaulting officer by the Respondents on the ground that he had not filed his return in respect of moveable/immovable assets. He was unable to file the return because he did not have the facility to log into the bank system. He wants to know the reasons for describing him as defaulting officer and a list of all the officers who were so described by the bank. The Respondents stated that the Appellant was absent without any authorisation for a long time. On account of that reason, he had not filed his returns of movable/immovable assets and he was described as a defaulting officer. They have no further reason to provide. In the above context, we also note that the list of other officers, described as defaulters, being third party information, cannot be disclosed to the Appellant.
13. In the RTI application dated 9.9.2015 (file No. 775), the Appellant sought information on six points regarding certain certified documents not having been provided to him in response to some earlier requests. He asked the CPIO about the aspects that refrained the Respondents from providing certified copies of various documents and whether any officer had advised/ordered not to provide such copies and related issues. The CPIO responded point-wise to the RTI application and denied the information on the ground that the queries did not qualify as information as defined in Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. The Appellant is not satisfied with this reply. 6
14. The RTI application dated 13.4.2016 (file No. 311893), sought information under five points regarding the appointment of the Appellant's reporting officer and related issues. The Appellant also asked for a copy of his APAR analysis for 2014-15. The Respondents reiterated the CPIO's point-wise reply dated 16.5.2016 and submitted that while APAR marks are conveyed to the officers of the public authority, the APAR analysis is not revealed by the bank.
15. In the RTI application dated 15.2.2016 (file No. 308628), the Appellant had sought information once again regarding the delay in credit of his salary arrears. He stated that even after the Central office ordered crediting of arrears, the Dehradun office took 28 days to do so. The Respondents stated that the Central office had asked the Dehradun office to verify the arrear statements before crediting the same and this took some time.
16. The RTI application dated 28.7.2015 (file No. 235) sought information on three points regarding the reasons for the Respondents criticising the Complainant for filing RTI applications and the basis on which they did so. The Complainant claimed that he was removed from service on account of the charge of filing RTI applications. The Respondents stated that the Complainant, instead of joining his duty, filed applications to various authorities and offices. They emphasised that the Complainant was removed from service on the charge of unauthorised absence from duty and not for filing RTI applications.
17. With regard to the RTI application dated 30.8.2015 (file No. 529), the Appellant stated that he had sought information regarding the number of transfers allowed to 7 an officer at his request and a related issue. The Respondents reiterated the CPIO's reply dated 30.9.2015 and we see no ground to interfere with it.
18. In the RTI application dated 30.8.2015 (file No. 530), the information sought was regarding the names of the agencies and Ministries that had been putting pressure on the Respondents regarding the transfer of the Appellant. The Appellant stated that the information was not provided. The Respondents stated that instead of joining his duty, the Appellant sent representations to various authorities and he would be having the information regarding the authorities that he approached.
19. In respect of the RTI application dated 26.7.2015 (file No. 531), the Appellant stated that he had sought information regarding the action taken on certain representations regarding his transfer. The Respondents stated that the position regarding the representation dated 15.12.2014, filed by the Appellant, had been conveyed to him. The Appellant, however, stated that he had sought information in respect of some other representations. In this context, we note that in his RTI application, the Appellant referred to his three representations regarding his transfer, without going into the specific dates etc. of the same.
20. In the RTI application dated 26.7.2015 (file 532), the Appellant enquired as to why the bank used medical examination as a last resort while it can be dangerous to the life of an employee and some related issues. The Respondents stated that the Appellant was subjected to examination by a Medical Board because he had been absenting himself and praying for his transfer on medical grounds. In our view, the queries of this RTI application do not qualify as information within the ambit of 8 Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. It is also not understood as to how examination by a Medical board can be dangerous to the life of an employee.
21. The application dated 25.7.2015 (file No. 533) was regarding stoppage of the Appellant's salary w.e.f. February, 2015, while his unauthorised absence was marked w.e.f. 25.6.2015. The Respondents explained that the Appellant was described as unauthorisedly absent with effect from 25.6.2015 after his examination by the Medical Board, but he had been continuously absent from duty w.e.f. 3.1.2015.
22. In the RTI application dated 24.7.2015 (file No. 720), the Appellant sought information regarding the reasons underlying the marks given to him in his APAR. The Respondents stated that point-wise reply was given to this application. Further, in our view, the queries of this RTI application, which are in the nature of seeking an explanation from the CPIO, did not fall within the ambit of information as defined in Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.
23. In regard to the RTI application dated 24.7.2015 (file No. 723), the Appellant stated that he wants the mechanism followed by the bank while awarding APAR marks. The Respondents stated that in most of the cases, the assessment given in an APAR is the assessment of the reporting officer and there is not set formula for the same.
24. In the RTI application dated 28.7.2015 (file No. 724), the Appellant had enquired as to when he had made a request for his medical examination. The Respondents stated that the medical examination was ordered because the Appellant had been on unauthorised absence from duty.
9
25. In the RTI application dated 28.7.2015 (file No. 725), the Appellant had once again asked for information regarding transfer of employees of the bank at their own request. The Respondents reiterated that such information is not maintained in a compiled form.
26. The information sought in the RTI application dated 28.7.2015 (file No. 726), was regarding the transfer of employees in the Dehradun region. The Respondents stated that such information is not maintained in a compiled form.
27. The information sought in the RTI application dated 30.11.2015 (file No. 778), was regarding the leave applications submitted by the Appellant. The Respondents stated that in case the Appellant submitted any applications, he would possess copies of the same.
28. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and note that the Appellant/Complainant has filed a large number of RTI applications, seeking voluminous information, which is not kept in a compiled form by the Respondents. Therefore, if the information is to be provided to the Appellant/Complainant in these cases, it would require considerable effort by the Respondent public authority to collect it, thereby disproportionately diverting their resource from their day to day work. In view of the nature of queries of most of the RTI applications, which arise from the grievances of the Appellant/Complainant against the Respondents, we would not like to burden the public authority with the task of collecting information in such cases. The Appellant/Complainant also ought to know that his service grievances cannot be addressed under the RTI Act. On the basis of the submissions made before us, it is noted that while the Appellant/Complainant blames the Respondents for 10 having taken certain wrong actions vis-a-vis him, the Respondents pointed out that the Appellant/Complainant was on prolonged unauthorised absence from duty and their directions to him to report for duty resulted in his filing representations to various authorities and RTI applications to seek information, often voluminous in nature and not maintained in a compiled form by them. Further, it is also noted that in a number of cases, the queries of the RTI applications were in the nature of seeking the opinion of/explanation from the CPIO. Such queries, we note, do not fall within the ambit of information as defined u/s 2 (f) of the RTI Act. In a few cases, the Appellant/Complainant stated that his RTI applications were not responded to within the time frame stipulated in the RTI Act. However, given the number of the applications filed by the Appellant/Complainant and the nature of queries contained therein, seeking voluminous information in certain cases, we do not believe that such delay in responding to the RTI applications, as was pointed out by the Appellant/Complainant, should become the ground of any action against the Respondents.
29. In the above context, we note the following observations made by the Madras High Court in its judgment in the PIO, the Registrar (Administration), High Court, Madras Vs. The CIC and Anr. (W.P. No. 26781/2013):-
"In fact, the first respondent-Commission itself has deprecated the practice of the second respondent herein in overloading the Registry of this Court by making several queries or complaints one after another and following the same under the RTI Act. Having found that the action of the second respondent in sending numerous complaints and representations and then following the same with the RTI applications; that it cannot be the way to redress his grievance; that he cannot overload a public authority and divert its 11 resources disproportionately while seeking information and that the dispensation of information should not occupy the majority of time and resource of any public authority, as it would be against the larger public interest, the first respondent-Commission clearly erred in passing the impugned order in this Writ Petition, directing the petitioner to furnish the details to the second respondent as well as sending a tabular statement listing all the complaints and representations received from the second respondent."
30. Further, in its judgment dated 5.2.2014 in Shail Sahni Vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. (W.P.C. 845/2014), the High Court of Delhi made the following observations:-
"This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law."
31. We would also like to recall here the following observations made by the Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay in Civil Appeal No. 6454/2011:-
"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 12 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 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."
32. Taking into account the totality of the facts of the case placed before us and the number and nature of the RTI applications filed by the Appellant/Complainant, we have no hesitation in stating that he has indulged in misuse of the RTI facility. We see no ground to interfere with most of the replies of the Respondents to the RTI applications and are of the view that direction for provision of any further information would only encourage the Appellant/Complainant to continue to misuse the RTI facility.
13
33. In view of the foregoing, 24 appeals and 5 complaints, covered by this order are dismissed.
34. 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 14