CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
B-Wing, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Appeal No.2437/ICPB/2008
F.No.PBA/07/886
July 15, 2008
In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 18/19
Appellant: Mr. Y. Srinivasa Murthy
Public Authority: Vijaya Bank
Mr. Hariprakash Shetty, GM & PIO
Mr. T. Valliappan, Executive Director & Appellate Authority
FACTS:
While working as branch manager, a charge sheet was issued to the
appellant pursuant to which an enquiry was conducted. On receipt of the enquiry
report, the CVC opinion was obtained and major penalty of dismissal was imposed
on the appellant. The said dismissal order of the disciplinary authority was
confirmed by appellate authority. The writ petition filed by the appellant before the
High Court was dismissed and presently the second appeal of the appellant is
pending before the Division Bench. By an application dated 12.2.2007, the
appellant sought for copies of the first and second stage advice of the CVC and
also the recommendation of the disciplinary authority to CVC regarding the
proposed penalty on receipt of the enquiry report. By a communication dated
30.10.2007, the CPIO declined to furnish the information on the ground of the
matter being sub judice and applying the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of the Act.
On appeal, the AA upheld the decision of the CPIO. Hence the present appeal in
which the appellant has submitted that at no point of time either before the
imposition of penalty or thereafter, the advice of CVC was given to the appellant in
spite of repeated requests. He has further contended that since the enquiry has been
completed, the question of applying the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of the Act
does not arise. Since he is seeking documents relating to his own case, the same
cannot be denied. He has also referred to certain decisions of the Supreme Court
wherein the court has held that punishment cannot be imposed without disclosing
all materials including the CVC advice. Accordingly, he has sought for a direction
to the CPIO to furnish the information. In the comments, it is stated that since the
appeal of the appellant is pending before the Division Bench of the High Court,
disclosure of the information sought for by the appellant may adversely affect the
interests of the bank. In the rejoinder, the appellant has submitted that even as per
1
the CVC guidelines, copies of its advice should be given to the concerned
employee and as such the same cannot be denied.
DECISION:
Normally, a matter being sub judice cannot be brought under Section 8(1)(h)
of the Act, However, this Commission has been taking a view that if the
information sought is directly connected with a matter in a Court and if the public
authority contends that the disclosure would affect the public authority
prejudicially in the judicial proceeding, then the information seeker should
approach the Court for a direction to the public authority to disclose the
documents. In the present case, the public authority has taken a stand in the
comments that disclosure might adversely affect its interests in the appeal pending
before the Division Bench of the High Court. Therefore, I uphold the decisions of
the CPIO and the AA. The appellant has relied on certain decisions of the Supreme
Court in this regard. They all relate to the proceedings during the disciplinary
proceedings and not in connection with the RTI Act. Accordingly, I dismiss the
appeal.
Let a copy of this decision be sent to the appellant and CPIO.
Sd/-
(Padma Balasubramanian)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy :
(Prem Singh Sagar)
Under Secretary & Assistant Registrar
Address of parties :
1. Mr. Hariprakash Shetty, GM & PIO, Vijaya Bank, Head Office, 41/2, M.G.
Road, Bangalore-560001
2. Mr. T. Valliappan, Executive Director & Appellate Authority, Vijaya Bank,
Head Office, 41/2, M.G. Road, Bangalore-560001
3. Mr. Y. Srinivasan Murthy, Rohini Deluxe Apartments, Varadaraja Nagar,
K.T. Road, Thirupathi-517507
2