CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00993 dated 2.11.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Smt. K. Kalaiselvi, Nagpur
Respondent - Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)
Facts
:
By an RTI application of 8.5.07 Ms. Kalaiselvi of Nagpur, Maharashtra
applied to the PIO, CVC seeking the following information:
“1. In case of any disciplinary proceeding against a Chairman of
a nationalized bank, who will be the disciplinary authority
and inquiring officer for the Chairman?
2. In case of any disciplinary proceeding against a General
Manager of a nationalized bank, who will be the disciplinary
authority and inquiring officer for the Chairman?
3. In case of allegations by a subordinate made against the top
executives of a nationalized bank, whether the allegations
can be inquired by a subordinate of the top executives?”
To this she received a reply from CPIO Shri K. L. Ahuja, Director, CVC on
8.6.07, as follows:
“You may refer to the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, and/
or the Service Regulations, pertaining to the concerned executives
for reply to the queries raised in paras 1 and 2 of your letter under
reference.
A complaint involving a Presidential appointee may be forwarded to
the CVO of the Banking Division. The latter in the first instance
would decide whether the information involves a vigilance angle or
not. If so, he would register that as a complaint in the Vigilance
Complaint Register and would process the matter further to decide
whether the allegations are general in nature or vague and deserve
to be filed, or the matter requires further investigation. In the latter
case, he would also decide as to whether investigation into the
allegations should be entrusted to the CBI or taken up
departmentally. If it is decided to investigate the matter
departmentally he may, in his discretion, take assistance of or seek
factual reports from the RBI or the CVO or any other authority of1
the Bank concerned. (Para 9.3 of Special Chapter on Vigilance
Management in Public Sector Banks refers).”
By another application Ms. K. Kalaiselvi vide letter dated 18.5.07
requested CVC to furnish certain information, as below:
“1. Knowingly, but to give trouble and harassment, a superior
posted an officer who does not know Hindi/ Marathi to a
place where the vernacular language is Hindi/ Marathi. In
that circumstance, the officer is blindly passing the Hindi/
Marathi instruments thus miserably failing to check the
correctness of the Hindi/ Marathi instruments, but doing the
same out of fear of further harassment. This put the bank
and customers at risk. Please inform me whether the act of
the superior amounting to misuse of his official powers?
2. Knowingly, but to give trouble and harassment, a superior
posted an engineer recruited for a specialized job, to do
another job. Under fear of further harassment, the
specialized officer doing that job without knowing the
concept and consequence. This put the bank and
customers at high risk. Please inform me whether the act of
the superior amounting to misuse of his official position?
In reply the PIO held that RTI does not cast on the public authority any
obligation to answer queries in which a petitioner attempts to elicit answers to
questions other than seeking information, and that the petitioner’s right extends
only to seeking information as defined in sec. 2(f). PIO also directed the
appellant to ask for copies of documents containing the information and not to
seek opinions through questionnaire. In the form of a questionnaire the request
fell beyond the RTI Act.
This was followed by a representation to CPIO dated 5.7.07 in which
appellant Ms. Kalaiselvi pleaded as follows:
“I requested for 3 information vide my letter dated 8.5.2007 (copy
enclosed). But you have replied vide letter dated 8.6.2007 (copy
enclosed), advised me to refer certain service regulations for the
first 2 information sought by me as follows: –
2
1. In case of any disciplinary proceeding against a Chairman of a
nationalized bank, who will be the disciplinary authority and
inquiring officer for the Chairman?
2. In case of any disciplinary proceeding against a General Manager
of a nationalized bank, who will be the disciplinary authority and
inquiring officer for the Chairman?
Since CVC is the nodal authorities, you can easily furnish this
information, instead of asking me to get the information from some
reference regulations, which would be very difficult to get. I request
you to furnish this two in formations early.
Regarding the 3rd information requested that,
In case of allegations by a subordinate made against the top
executives of a nationalized bank, whether the allegations can be
inquired by a subordinate of the top executives? For that you have
replied that a complaint involving a Presidential appointee may be
forwarded to the CBO of the Banking Division and they would
decide whether the information involves a vigilance angle or not. I
do not know who are presidential appointees? This information is
totally different from the information I want e.g. say a junior officer,
a subordinate, made an allegation against the senior executive of a
bank and the executive appointed his subordinate to conduct the
inquire against the allegations made against him by a junior officer.
In such circumstances, I called the following information from you
that “In case of allegations by a subordinate made against the top
executives of a nationalized bank, whether the allegations can be
inquired by a subordinate of the top executives? Please furnish me
the specific information that whether a subordinate can be
appointed to inquire into allegation made against a superior by
another subordinate by way of departmental inquiry or the concern
executive or the respective authorities to refer the same only to
CVO of the Banking Division, who alone empowered to conduct
inquire under such circumstances? I request you to furnish this
information specifically.”
The appellant Ms Kalaiselvi had in the meantime moved Appellate Authority
vide letter dated 30.6.2007. In its reply the Appellate Authority said that the
application of appellant couldn’t be termed as seeking information as defined in
sec. 2(f) of RTI Act:
“The Central Information Commission, in its decision dated
21.4.2006 on the appeal of Dr. D. V. Rao, has held that the RTI Act3
does not cast on the public authority any obligation to answer
queries in which a petitioner attempts to elicit answers to his
questions; and that the petitioner’s right extends only to seeking
information as defined in Section 2 (f) either by pinpointing the file,
document, paper or record etc., or by mentioning the type of
information as may be available with the specified public authority.
Further, the Central Information Commission, in its decision dated
2.5.2006 on the appeal of Shri Mahavir Singhvi, had directed the
appellant to ask for copies of documents containing the information
and not t seek opinions through a questionnaire. Since the matters
raised by you seek answers to the queries/ opinion of this public
authority on the issues raised therein, the request is beyond the
scope of RTI Act, and the opinion sought/ query raised cannot be
answered.”
The Appellate Authority then upheld the decision of CPIO referring to
decisions of CIC in appeals of Dr. D.V.Rao and Shri Mahavir Singhvi.
“I find that in your application you have raised matters, which
cannot be termed as seeking of information as defined in section 2
(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Accordingly I uphold the decision of the
CPIO that your request is beyond the scope of the RTI Act keeping
in view decisions of the CIC on the appeals of Dr. D. V. Rao and
Shri Mahavir Singhvi.”
The appellant has now appealed to us under sec. 19 (3) of the RTI Act
pleading as below ”
“This information should be very well with them and they
cannot evade their responsibility by stating that it is a
question and they are not answerable as per RTI Act? CVC is
answerable to any question and information pertaining to
misuse of powers. If the above situation does not amount to
misuse of powers, then they can say so.
Under these circumstances, I request the CIC to direct the CVC
to furnish the information sought out by me vide my letter
dated 18.5.2007.”
The aforesaid was listed for hearing on Dec. 22, 2008 at 12.30 through
video conferencing. It was accordingly heard on 22.12.2008. Only respond4nt.
the then CPIO Shri K. L. Ahuja is present. Although arrangements have been
4
made for video conferencing with Nagpur and notice sent to appellant dated
12.12.2008, appellant Ms. Kalaiselvi has opted not to be p[resent.
DECISION NOTICE
As can be seen from the applications of 8.5.07 and 18.5.07 quoted above,
the first is with regard to procedures to be followed against senior officers of a
nationalized bank in which a reply has been sent to appellant by CPIO Shri K. L.
Ahuja point wise within the mandated time limit. The second application,
however, is simply a complaint of alleged misuse of official powers by posting an
officer that appellant Ms. Kalaiselvi considers incompetent. This is well outside
the jurisdiction of this Commission.
The second appeal before us, moreover is only with regard to the request
for information contained in the application of 18.5.07. Besides, she has dwelt at
considerable length in her second appeal upon the duty of the CVC to protect her
as a whistle blower. These are issues well outside the jurisdiction of this
Commission that can only ensure that any information held by a public authority
is disclosed to applicant so long as it is not exempt from disclosure under any of
the sub-sections to Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The present appeal not being
one in which there is any complaint of denial of any such information, it fails
under the RTI Act 2005 and is hereby dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
22.12.2008
5
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.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
22.12.2008
6