CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000667 F.No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000668
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000669 F.No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000670
Total : 4 Appeals
Dated, the 28 October, 2010.
th
Appellant : Ms.Caroline Minj
Respondent : State Bank of India, Mumbai
s
These four secondappeals (viz.F.NoS.CIC/AT/A/2010/000667,
668, 669 & 670) filed by Ms.Caroline Minj against the orders of the
Appellate Authority, State Bank of India, Mumbai were taken up for
hearing as a bunch on 20.10.2010 pursuant to Commission’s notice dated
29.09.2010. Appellant was represented by Shri John P. Minj, while the
respondents were represented by Ms.Sophia Dayanand, Deputy Manager
(Law).
Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000667:
2. Through her RTIapplication dated 13.03.2010, appellant has
queried the respondents to explain to her how a certain amount
mentioned in the charge sheet served on her ― and which led to her
eventual dismissal ― could be substantiated.
3. No responsibility can be cast on the respondents to answer such a
query which lies beyond the scope of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
CIC_AT_A_2010_000667_M_44843.doc
Page 1 of 4
4. Appeal fails. Closed.
Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000668:
5. Through this appeal ― linked to appellant’s RTIapplication dated
06.02.2010 ― she had sought information pertaining to 14 items.
Respondents provided to her information relating to two items, viz. items
at Sl.Nos.2 and 9. For query at Sl.No.6 of her RTIapplication,
respondents informed her that it was a huge volume of information spread
over the period 1997 to 1999 and could not be furnished without causing
diversion of the respondents’ resources. Queries at Sl.Nos.7 and 10
were unclear and no information could be identified to be disclosed in
relation to them. Items at Sl.Nos.11 to 14 contained queries demanding
explanations from the respondents which they declined to give. In
respect of queries at Sl.Nos.3 to 5, appellant was informed that contrary
to her belief, no such information was ever created.
6. I find that the appellant has been attempting to engage the public
authority in a dialogue about her removal from service over 13 years ago.
These queries are an expression of that. Respondents had taken a clear
position regarding all queries and provided such information which they
actually held. Their replies to her are all within the framework of the RTI
law.
7. There is no case for any disclosure in this RTIapplication.
8. Appeal closed.
Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000669:
9. A perusal of appellant’s RTIapplication dated 06.03.2010 shows
that these were interrogatory queries calling upon the respondents to
explain to her the functioning of the Review Committee which 13 years
CIC_AT_A_2010_000667_M_44843.doc
Page 2 of 4
ago found her culpable and authorized her removal from service. There
is very little in these queries to which any identifiable information could be
linked.
10. No responsibility can be cast on the respondents to answer such
interrogatories.
11. Appeal fails. Closed.
Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000670:
12. This is one more RTIapplication (dated 15.04.2010) through which
appellant has attempted to interrogate the public authority about their
actions when the disciplinary proceedings against her were extant.
13. There shall be no obligation to answer such a query which seeks
the respondents to explain their conduct to her.
CIC_AT_A_2010_000667_M_44843.doc
Page 3 of 4
14. Appeal fails. Closed.
15. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
CIC_AT_A_2010_000667_M_44843.doc
Page 4 of 4