Central Information Commission
Mr.Clement Toppo vs Central Bank on 5 December, 2012
Central Information Commission
Room No.4, Club Building,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi 110 067.
Tel No: 011 26106140
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/002131/VS/01419
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/002131/VS
Dated: 05.12.2012
Appellant : Shri Harinder Dhingra
H. No. D4A/7
DLF Phase 1 Gurgaon
Haryana122002.
Respondent: CPIO, Punjab National Bank,
Head Office, Management Audit & Review
Division, Rajendra Bhawan Rajendra Place New
Delhi.
Date of Hearing: 05.12.2012
ORDER
Facts
The appellant filed an application dated 26.08.2011 under the RTI Act with the respondent for uploading the residential addresses of DGMs and above. Respondent provided the information to the appellant. Appellant filed first appeal before the appellate authority. FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO. Aggrieved by the decision of the FAA, appellant filed second appeal.
Hearing
2. The appellant and the respondent were present at the hearing.
3. The appellant submitted that as per section 4(1)(ix) of the Act every public authority is required to publish a directory of its officers and employees. Appellant stated that he has received the information but the respondent has not uploaded it. Appellant submitted that what he requested was uploading of the information on the website which has not been done so far.
4. Appellant cited the order CIC/WB/A/2007/001547 dated 19.05.2009 where Commission directed the respondent to publish the directory of the public authority including residential address of its officers. Appellant contended that he is not seeking uploading of the residential address of all the employees of the bank, he is asking to upload the residential address of only the officers of DGM and above.
5. Respondent said that they have provided the residential addresses of the officers of DGM and above to the appellant.
Respondent stated that they have complied with the provisions under section 4(1)(ix) of the Act by uploading a directory of its officials including the office address, designation and official phone numbers.
6. Respondent stated that they have more than 65,000 employees and it is not practical to upload and update the residential address of all employees. Respondent said that the officers keep changing their addresses due to their different postings and it is very difficult to track the details of all the employees. If they do so, the resources of the respondent will be needlessly diverted. Respondent further stated that since they are a public authority they cannot publish wrong details in their website.
7. Respondent further submitted that bank officials are responsible for many sensitive financial transactions with major stakes. Therefore, disclosure of residential addresses will implicate the physical safety of officers thereby affecting the work.
8. Respondent contended that in the case cited by the appellant, it is stated that that there can be an exception if the position held by the official concerned or the work on which he/she is engaged is of sensitive nature. It was also stated that the decision would apply only to that particular case.
9. In the case CIC/DS/A/2011/004363 dated 25.08.2012 it is stated that the residential address of the employees are exempted from disclosure under the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the Act.
10. From the above discussion it is clear that:
(a) the respondent must provide the appellant the information sought in the RTI application dated 26.08.2011 and comply with section 4(i)(ix) and (x) of the RTI Act.
(b) the conclusion cannot be drawn that the RTI Act has mandated the publication of residential addresses of the bank personnel in the manner stated by the appellant.
Decision
11. Order of the FAA is upheld, read with para 10 above.
The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer