Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2010/000990
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 3 March 2011
Date of decision : 3 March 2011
Name of the Appellant : Shri Bharat Kishore Srivastava
Advocate, High Court,
9B, Strachery Road,
Allahabad - 211 001.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Punjab & Sind Bank,
Zonal Office,
Lucknow.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Shri Abdul Mujeeb, Senior Manager,
(ii) Shri Lekh Raj Chugh, Senior Manager
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. Both the parties were present during the hearing and made their
submissions.
3. The Appellant/Complainant had sought the permission of the CPIO to
inspect the personal service records of one Shankar Lal, his client. The CPIO
had denied the permission on the ground that it was information relating to a
third person and was, therefore, exempt under Section 8(1) (d) of the Right to
Information (RTI) Act. The Appellate Authority had endorsed this decision.
During the hearing, Shankar Lal was himself present and submitted that his
records should be shown to the Appellant/Complainant.
CIC/SM/A/2010/000990
4. After hearing the submissions of both the parties and carefully
considering the facts of the case, we think that the relevant service records of
Shankar Lal should be shown to the Appellant/Complainant on the basis of the
authorisation indicated by the employee concerned during the present hearing.
Therefore, we direct the CPIO to invite the Appellant/Complainant and Shankar
Lal on any mutually convenient date within 15 working days from the receipt of
this order and to show him the service records of the said employee as against
the items a, b, d and e of the RTI application as available with the Bank. After
inspection, if the Appellant chooses to get the photocopies of any of those
records, the CPIO shall provide the same free of charge.
5. The Appellant/Complainant submitted that he should be compensated
for the harassment and the financial loss he had to undergo on account of the
wrongful denial of the information by the CPIO in the first place. To this, the
Respondent submitted that there was nothing wrong in the response of the
CPIO since the desired information was about the personal service records of
one of their employees and they had nothing in their possession to show that
the said employee had authorised the Appellant/Complainant to seek such
information from the Bank. He further submitted that mere endorsement by the
employee concerned on the RTI application could not be taken as his
authorisation. After carefully considering these submissions, we think that the
CPIO was not entirely wrong in denying the information although the provision
under which he denied it was not exactly relevant. Section 8(1) (d) refers to
information in the nature of commercial confidence or intellectual property or
trade secrets and the desired information would not fall in any of these three
categories. At the most, the CPIO can be held guilty of misapplication of the
provision of law in support of his decision; there is nothing on record to show
CIC/SM/A/2010/000990
that he denied the information out of any bad intent. Therefore, we do not think
that there is any case for the award of any compensation.
6. The appeal/complaint is disposed off accordingly.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief 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)
Deputy Registrar
CIC/SM/A/2010/000990