Ashok Kumar Singh Gaur vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 23 July, 2020

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Ashok Kumar Singh Gaur vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 23 July, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 18.07.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the Page 1 of 5 appellant through his RTI application dated 08.03.2018 and first appeal dated 24.04.2018:-

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 08.03.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Baroda, U.P. Gramin Bank, Regional Office, Gautam Nagar, Fatehpur, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 07.04.2018 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with this, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 24.04.2018. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated

25.05.2018 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 18.07.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 18.07.2018inter alia on the grounds that the reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take the necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

Page 2 of 5

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 07.04.2018 gave point-wise reply to the RTI application wherein they denied the information on point no. (iv) of the RTI application under clauses (e) & (j) of sub-section (1) of section 8 of the RTI Act. The FAA vide order dated 25.05.2018 denied the information on point nos. (v) and

(vi) of the RTI application under clause (h) of sub-section (1) of section 8 of the RTI Act and further agreed with the views take by the CPIO on remaining points.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri M.K.Jha, Regional Manager & CPIO, Baroda UP Gramin Bank, Fatehpur attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that reply given by the respondent was incomplete and misleading. He contended that information sought by him was only factual information, disclosure of which would not impede the process of investigation as claimed by the respondent, hence, exemption claimed under section 8 (1)(h) of the RTI Act was not applicable in this case.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had already furnished point-wise reply/information to the appellant vide letter dated 07.04.2018. Moreover, they submitted that the investigation was over and the appellant was dealt with departmentally and all the relevant documents had already been provided to the appellant during the course of enquiry. The respondent further submitted that information sought on point nos. 5 and 6 of the RTI application could not be given to the appellant being the privileged documents of the bank.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, notes that the respondent have furnished point-wise reply/information to the appellant vide letter dated 07.04.2018. Perusal of the reply given by the respondent reveals that information Page 3 of 5 sought on point no. 4 of the RTI application was completely denied under section 8 (1) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act. However, the respondent during the hearing failed to justify as to how the disclosure of the names of the officials performing their official duty could be termed as personal information. Further, the Commission feels that fathers' name and address of the officials has been rightly denied on the ground of personal information. Besides, the respondent had denied the information on point no. 5 of the RTI application stating that information sought was privileged documents of the bank, hence, could not be provided to the appellant. This may not be out of place to mention that under the RTI Act exemptions can be claimed by the respondent only under the provisions mentioned in section 8 of the RTI Act and not otherwise. Hence, the denial of information on the ground of privilege documents of the bank was not sustainable in the eyes of law. Moreover, the information sought by the appellant was related to disciplinary proceedings against him which he was entitled to get with a view to know the material relied upon by the authorities while visiting the appellant adversely in contravention of the principles of natural justice. In view of this, the respondent is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide revised information on point nos. 4 and 5 of the RTI application excluding the personal information as discussed above, within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With the above 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: 13.07.2020
Authenticated true copy
                                                                            Page 4 of 5
 R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)

Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :
BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK
REGIONAL OFFICE,
2-A, GAUTAM NAGAR,
FATEHPUR (U.P.) - 212601

THE F.A.A,
BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK,
HEAD OFFICE,
A-1, CIVIL LINES, RAEBAREILLY
(U.P.) - 229 001

ASHOK KUMAR SINGH GAUR




                                        Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission