Rupesh Kumar vs Canara Bank on 1 July, 2023

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Rupesh Kumar vs Canara Bank on 1 July, 2023

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 05.10.2021 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 04.08.2021 and first appeal dated 26.08.2021:-

(i) What action has been taken on the representation made against the transfer orders of Ms. Anjali Srivastav issued vide Circle office Lucknow letter No. LC:HRM:TRANSFER:626237:1:2021 dated 01.07.2021. Provide copy of noting sheet on which decision was given on the representation by the Competent Authority.

(ii) Intimate how many officers of Canara Bank under Lucknow Circle have completed more than 03 years in same office / branch and still not transferred?

How many out of them have only been transferred within offices/branch situated in Lucknow Circle even after completing prescribed tenure in Lucknow Circle?

Page 1 of 5

Provide copies of transfer orders of all such officers. Details may be provided with name and employee code of the officers and tenure in specific branch/ office/ RAH/CO/RO etc.

(iii) How many lady officers (above scale -II) working in different office/ branches /RAH/ RO/ CO under jurisdiction of Lucknow Circle office have been transferred out of Lucknow Circle jurisdiction after completion of prescribed tenure in Lucknow Circle and how many lady officers have been retained in different office/ branches /RAH/ R0/ CO under jurisdiction of Lucknow Circle office still after completion of prescribed tenure along with reasons for not doing so. Details may be provided with name and employee code of the officers and tenure in specific branch/ office/ RAH/CO/RO etc.

(iv) Copies of orders of diversions which were made against the transfer orders issued in June /July 2021 in respect of all affected officers of Lucknow Circle along with copy of noting sheet or file extract on which approval of Competent Authority was obtained. Details may be provided with name and employee code of the officers and tenure in specific branch/ office/ RAH/CO/RO etc.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 04.08.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Canara Bank, Lucknow, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 25.08.2021 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 26.08.2021. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 13.09.2021 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 05.10.2021 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 05.10.2021 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 25.08.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:-

Page 2 of 5

"The information sought is related to personal information of the officers & employees of the bank, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and that would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual officers & employees and are protected from disclosure under sub section

(j) of section (1) of section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, it does not satisfy the larger public interest justifying the disclosure of such information."

The FAA vide order dated 13.09.2021 provided the following revised reply/information:-

"On perusal, we observed that the PIO has not disclosed the information that qualifies for exemption u/s 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act. We further note that the same is also exempted u/s 8 (1) (e) of the said Act. However, the information sought by you, is partially exempted under the Act. In view of the same your appeal is partially allowed. You may refer the below mentioned link available on Canara Bank website:

https://canarabank.com/User_page/aspx?menulevel=5&menuid=6&CatID=28"

In compliance of the necessary disclosure as per Section 4 of the RTI, information regarding the staff is duly disclosed by the bank on its website accessible to public."

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Rahul Gupta, Manager(Law), Canara Bank, Lucknow, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he sought information regarding posting profile of officers transferred in 2021 from Lucknow Circle and details of those officers whose transfer orders were modified with the approval of competent authority along with tenure. Besides, he stated that he also sought information regarding disposal of representation (made against transfer order) of his wife Ms. Anjali Srivastav, Manager. He contended that the information was denied arbitrarily on the ground of third party information. Further, he stated that web link provided by the FAA by which it was claimed that partial information was given on the website but the link was also not opening.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that information sought pertained to third party employee, disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest. Accordingly, they claimed exemption under section 8 (1) (e) & (j) Page 3 of 5 of the RTI Act. They further submitted that partial information was available on their web portal and link was given vide letter dated 13.09.2021.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that reply given by the respondent was incomplete and ambiguous. The respondent had denied the information inter alia by claiming exemption under Section 8(1) (e) and 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. However, they had not obtained the consent of the person whose information they were alleging to be involved. The appellant informed that Ms. Anjali Srivastav is the legally wedded wife and representation was made against her transfer and the action taken thereupon was sought. Besides, the appellant had asked for general information which did not involve any third party information or personal information of the individual such as number of lady officers or other officers having completed more than 3 years etc. The respondent is directed to re- look into the RTI application and provide the revised point-wise information to the appellant within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If necessary, the respondent may seek consent of Ms. Anjali about the disclosure of action taken on her representation. With these observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-


                                                                                सुरेश चं ा)
                                                             (Suresh Chandra) (सु        ा
                                                                             सूचना आयु )
                                                  Information Commissioner (सू
                                                                   दनांक/Date: 30.06.2023
Authenticated true copy

R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)

Addresses of the parties:
The CPIO
Canara Bank, R&L Section,
2nd Floor, Circle Office,
Vipin Khand Gomti Nagar,
Lucknow-226010
                                                                                   Page 4 of 5
 First Appellate Authority
Canara Bank, R&L
Section, 2nd Floor, Circle Office,
Vipin Khand Gomti
Nagar,Lucknow-226010

Shri Rupesh Kumar




                                     Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission