Central Information Commission
Shri Ramdas Athawale vs Central Bank Of India on 25 May, 2009
Central Information Commission
No.CIC/PB/C/2008/00343-SM dated 25.06.2007
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated 25.05.2009
Complainant : Shri Ramdas Athawale
Respondent : Central Bank of India
On behalf of the Complainant Shri Bhupesh Thulkar, is present.
On behalf of the Respondent, no one was present.
The brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Complainant had requested the CPIO in his application dated 25 June 2007 for a number of information about the officers and employees to whom charge-sheet had been issued between 1 June 2004 till 30 June 2007. On not receiving any reply from the CPIO, he preferred an appeal before the first Appellate Authority on 25 September 2007. He did not receive any order from the first Appellate Authority and has, therefore, complained to the CIC against the deemed refusal of information by the CPIO and the first Appellate Authority.
3. During the hearing, the Complainant was represented by his representatives who made their submissions. No one was present on behalf of the Respondent. We view it very seriously that the Respondent chose not to be present in spite of notice. We would like the CPIO concerned to explain in writing within 10 working days from the receipt of this order why he chose not to appear before the Commission for this hearing. The Complainant furnished copies of communications received from the CPIO and the first Appellate Authority dated 26 July 2007 and 12 October 2007 respectively which shows that they had acted on the application of the Complainant. However, it is noted that the CPIO had denied the information claiming that it was personal information the disclosure of which had no relation to any public activity or interest and which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual concerned. He referred to Section 8(1) (j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act in support of his denial. The first Appellate Authority did not pass any speaking order and merely observed that the CPIO had already given the reply.
No.CIC/PB/C/2008/00343-SM
4. In his complaint, the Complainant has drawn attention to the fact that the CPIO had addressed his reply wrongly even though the Complainant had indicated the exact address in which the information was to be sent. On examination of the original application, it is noted that indeed the Complainant had mentioned a particular address in which he wanted the CPIO to send his reply; instead, the CPIO sent the reply in the address printed on the letterhead of the Complainant. Understandably, the Complainant might not have received that communication. We would like the CPIO to be more careful in future and send his reply in the right address.
5. As far as the information sought is concerned, it is noted that the Complainant had wanted the names of all the officers and employees of the Bank to whom charge- sheet had been issued between 1 June 2004 and 30 June 2007. He had wanted this information in a tabular form and this included such details as the category (SC./ST/Gen) of the employee concerned, brief details of the charge sheet issued, loss to the Bank and punishment awarded in each case. The CPIO had stated in his reply that this information could not be disclosed as personal information and as exempt under Section 8(1) (j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. We do not agree with the contention of the CPIO. Information in regard to the names and other details of employees against whom disciplinary proceedings have been initiated and charge sheet issued is not personal information at all and should be available in the public domain once the disciplinary proceeding is over and appropriate punishment awarded. In this case, the Complainant has asked for information about those to whom charge sheet had been issued and punishment awarded. Therefore, this information cannot be denied by taking recourse to the exemption provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. However, we find the scope of the information sought to be too vast and encompassing the entire Bank. For a Bank spread over the whole country with thousands of branches and offices, obviously, such information may not be maintained centrally at one place, in this case, the Central Office for the Bank.
6. In view of this, we direct the CPIO to provide to the Complainant, in the address given by him in his application, within 10 working days from receipt of this order, the information sought about only those officers and employees about whom such information is available in the Central Office of the Bank.
No.CIC/PB/C/2008/00343-SM
7. With the above direction, this complaint is disposed off.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Satyananda Mishra) 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) Assistant Registrar No.CIC/PB/C/2008/00343-SM