Central Information Commission
Mrashokumar M Pandya vs Bank Of India on 28 May, 2015
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000896
File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000897
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 28th May 2015
Date of decision : 28th May 2015
Name of the Appellant : Shri Ashok Kumar M. Pandya,
R/o: 16/A, Kisan Complex, Mani Nagar Char
Rasta, Ahmedabad 380008
Name of the Public : Central Public Information Officer,
Authority/Respondent Bank of India
Head Office Legal Dept. Star Huose, 3rd Floor, C5, GBlock, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, P.B.No 8135, Mumbai 4000051 The Appellant was present at the NIC Studio, Ahmedabad.
On behalf of the Respondents, Shri P. Augustine, AGM was present at the NIC Studio, Mumbai.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal These files contain appeals in respect of the RTI applications dated 27.11.2013 and 21.10.2013, filed by the Appellant, seeking information on various issues. Not satisfied with CIC/SH/A/2014/000896 the response of the Respondents, he has approached the CIC in second appeal in both the cases.
2. In the RTI application dated 27.11.2013 (File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000896), the Appellant sought information under four points regarding LTC availed of by officers of the bank during the period 1.12.2005 to 30.11.2013. The information sought included particulars of the officers, details of their tickets, whether the officers concerned were granted permission to go abroad while availing of LTC, copy of the application for reimbursement of LTC and copy of the air tickets showing air fare and boarding pass etc. The Respondents reiterated their decision to deny the information under Section 8 (1) (d) and (j) of the RTI Act on the ground that its disclosure would harm the competitive position of the third parties concerned and cause unwarranted invasion of their privacy. The Respondents also stated that the information sought is too voluminous and would take considerable effort to collect. The Appellant alleged widespread irregularities in the case of LTCs availed of by officers of the bank. He stated that there were cases in which the officers, who availed of LTC to Andaman & Nicobar, also visited foreign destinations with the same tickets. He prayed for direction to the Respondents to provide the information sought by him. In response to our query, the Respondents stated that they have over five CIC/SH/A/2014/000896 thousand branches all over India and information concerning LTC availed of by officers is scattered in the offices in which claims concerning LTC were settled.
3. We have considered the records and the submissions of both the parties and note that there is no ground whatsoever to invoke Section 8 (1) (d) in this case, because the officers, who availed of LTC, are not commercial entities that need to protect their competitive position. Further, since LTCs were financed from public funds, information concerning the same cannot be regarded as the personal information of the officers concerned and cannot be denied under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. However, we note that the Appellant has sought information for a period of eight years and in view of the large number of branches of the bank, the number of LTC claims would be very large and, as stated by the Respondents, information concerning the same is scattered in their offices all over India. Therefore, in our view, collection of the entire information sought by the Appellant would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority from its day to day work. At the same time, in the interest of transparency, we would like the Appellant to have access to at least some information. Therefore, the Appellant may convey to the CPIO in writing, as per his choice, the names of any two offices of the bank and any period of one month between 1.1.2012 and 30.11.2013. In the event of his doing so, the CPIO is directed to provide him the information, sought in his RTI application CIC/SH/A/2014/000896 dated 27.11.2013, in respect of the two offices and the month chosen by him, within thirty days of receipt from him of his choice regarding the offices and the month, under intimation to the Commission. The information should be provided free of cost. The CPIO is further directed that while providing copies of the documents sought by the Appellant, information of a personal nature, such as the names and age of family members etc, should be excluded.
4. In the RTI application dated 21.10.2013 (File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/00897), the Appellant sought information on six points and stated that he was not satisfied with the response of the Respondents to any of the six points. The Respondents reiterated the CPIO's reply dated 2.11.2013, which was upheld by the FAA. Having perused the records, we see no ground to interfere with the CPIO's reply to points No. 1 and 6. At points No. 2 to 5, the Appellant sought information regarding a vigilance enquiry conducted by the bank concerning a complaint regarding an account in the Ahmedabad main branch. The information was denied by the CPIO under Section 8 (1) (d) and (j) of the RTI Act. The Appellant questioned the CPIO's decision. He stated that the bank conducted an enquiry regarding the above mentioned complaint and based on production of the enquiry report in the High Court, the Court stayed criminal proceedings against a senior officer of the bank. He further submitted that Bank of India was not a party to the case before the High CIC/SH/A/2014/000896 Court and he wanted to know as to how the enquiry report of the bank was produced by the officer concerned before the Court. He also stated that points No. 2 to 5 of his RTI application sought information in the above context. We have considered the submissions made by both the parties. In the context of the information sought by the Appellant, we note the following observations of Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & Ors.: "We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right." The Appellant has not established any larger public interest for disclosure to him of the information concerning a vigilance enquiry conducted by the bank in respect of third CIC/SH/A/2014/000896 parties, in an issue, with which the Appellant was not connected. Therefore, we uphold the decision of the CPIO to deny the information in response to points No. 2 to 5 under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, no further action is due on the RTI application dated 21.10.2013.
5. With the directions in paragraph 3 and the above observations, the two appeals are disposed of.
6. 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 CIC/SH/A/2014/000896