Central Information Commission
File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000397 dated 18-09-2008
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated: 17 February 2010
Name of the Appellant : Shri Ashok Kumar Dixit
8/104, New Malhar,
Sahara States, Jankipuram,
Lucknow.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, State Bank of India,
Local Head Office,
Administrative Building,
Moti Mahal Marg, PB No. 57,
Lucknow - 226 001.
The Appellant was not present in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri S. Mitra was present.
2. In this case, the Appellant had, in his application dated 18
September 2008, requested the CPIO for the copies of two separate
documents relating to the disciplinary proceedings instituted against him. In
his reply dated 16 October 2008, the CPIO denied to provide the copies of
those documents stating that since the disciplinary proceedings were in
progress, disclosure of such documents was exempt under Section 8(1) (h) of
the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Against this, he had preferred an appeal
on 12 November 2008 which the Appellate Authority disposed of in his order
dated 2 December 2008. In his detailed order, he endorsed the decision of
the CPIO in the matter. It is against this order that the Appellant has come
before the CIC in second appeal.
3. The case was heard through videoconferencing. The Appellant was
not present in spite of notice. The Respondent was present in the Lucknow
studio of the NIC and we heard his submissions. He explained that at the
time the information had been sought, the disciplinary proceedings were on
and the CPIO had felt that the disclosure of such documents at that stage
could impede the process of investigation and enquiry. He further informed
that now the proceedings were over and the employee concerned had since
CIC/SM/A/2009/000397
been dismissed from service.
4. Now that the disciplinary proceedings are over, we direct the CPIO to
provide to the Appellant within 10 working days from the receipt of this
order the copies of the desired documents.
5. We find that while denying to part with the copies of those
documents, the CPIO had not clearly explained how the disclosure of such
documents could have impeded the process of enquiry in progress; mere
citing of an exemption provision is not adequate. In fact, whenever any
information is denied, the CPIO must pass a speaking order supporting his
conclusions with appropriate provisions of the Right to Information (RTI)
Act.
6. The appeal is, thus, disposed off.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(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
CIC/SM/A/2009/000397