Central Information Commission
Appeal No. CIC/PB/A/2008/00373-SM dated 06.02.2008
Right to Information Act-2005 - Under Section (19)
Dated 07.01.2009
Appellant: Ram Harish Gaur
Respondent: State Bank of India
Appellant was not present during the hearing. However, he presented
himself after the hearing was over.
On behalf of the Respondents, the following were present.
(i) Sh. Sougata Mitra, Dy. Manager (Law)
(ii) Sh. Kundan Kumar, Dy. Manager (HR)
The brief facts of the case are as under:
2. The Appellant had, in his application dated 18 December 2006, requested
the CPIO for 13 items of information concerning his appointment in a certain
Branch of the Bank. The CPIO, in his reply dated 16 January 2007, denied the
information on the ground that it was personal in nature and had no connection
with any public interest or activity and, thus, exempt under section 8(1) (j) of the
Right to Information Act. The Appellant filed his appeal before the Appellate
Authority against this denial. The Appellate Authority decided his appeal after a
lapse of several months and upheld the decision of the CPIO and rejected the
appeal. It is against this order of the Appellate Authority that the Appellant has
now approached the Commission in second appeal.
3. During the hearing, we heard the Respondents only as the Appellant was
not present. We also carefully examined all the documents enclosed with the
appeal. It is noted that the CPIO had declined the information sought by the
Appellant on the ground that the information sought was in the nature of a
complaint and had no relation to any public interest or public activity and, hence,
exempt under Section 8(i) (j) of the Right to Information Act. It is further noted
that the Appellate Authority, in disposing off his appeal, upheld the decision of
the CPIO and termed all the items of information sought by the Appellant to be
not in conformity with the definition of information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI
Act. On a careful examination of the 13 items of information sought by the
Appellant, we find it difficult to agree with the views of the CPIO and the
Appellate Authority. In fact, in their own comments on the appeal before the
Commission, the Public Authority has now admitted that they should have
provided the information and that their response was based on an incorrect
understanding of the Section 8(i) (j) of the RTI Act. The denial of information in
the first place on a wrong interpretation of the provisions of the RTI Act is a
serious lapse on the part of the CPIO for which he deserves to be penalized.
However, before imposing any penalty for the denial of information, we would
like him to explain within 15 working days from the receipt of this order as to why
a penalty of Rs. 25000/- be not imposed on him as per the provisions of Section
20 of the RTI Act for willfully misinterpreting the information sought and
eventually denying it.
4. We also direct the CPIO to provide the Appellant with the following
information in addition to what has already been provided in the comments of
the Bank as in their letter dated 21.06.2008:
(i) A copy of the order by which staff was sanctioned when the Branch
was first opened at Bankati, District Basti.
(ii) A copy of the order of the Local Implementation Committee by
which the Appellant had been appointed as a canteen boy.
(iii) A copy of the instructions/rules/regulations under which the Local
Implementation Committee was setup and was authorized to
employ staff.
(iv) A Copy of the Recruitment Rule prevalent in 1978 specifying the
minimum educational qualification for the post of messenger.
(v) A list of employees posted in the Bankati Branch along with their
designation between 1980-82.
(vi) A copy of the application, the Appellant had filed based on which
the AGM, ZO Region-3 had issued the letter dated 12.09.1994
appointing the Appellant to the post of Sweeper with one third of
the salary.
(vii) Copies of the application, the Appellant had filed in the Bank in
response to the advertisement for filling up vacancies of posts in
1988 and 1991, if any.
(viii) Detailed reply on the item no. 9 in his application dated 18.12.2006.
(ix) Clarification on whether the Applicant was paid the salary for the
month of January, February, March and April 1996.
5. With the above directions, we dispose off this appeal. Copies of this order
be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(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.
Sd/-
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar