CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
Opposite Ber Sarai, New Delhi -110067
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001352/SG/14242
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001352/SG
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Sumit K.Bose,
Manager (Tea)
Allahbad Bank,
Palace Road, Mattancherry,
Kochi -682002
Respondent : Mr. Chitranjan Sahai
PIO & AGM(Law)
Allahabad Bank
2, Netaji Subhash Road,
Kolkata-700 001
RTI application filed on : 8/12/2009
PIO replied : 29/1/2010
First Appeal filed on : 19/2/2010
Order of First Appellate Authority : 31/3/2010
Second Appeal received on : 27/9/2010
No. Information Sought PIO's Reply
1. Furnish the certified copy of the documents / records The desired information (Board Agenda)
/ information pertaining to- is contained in five A-4 size pages (05
a) The board Agenda by which the proposal to pages) and can be provided upon
engage XLRI, Jamshedpur as consultant for payment of further fees of A-4 size as
drafting of comprehensive HR Policy Document per the fees rules framed under the At.
for Allahabad Bank covering Inter-alia
Promotion policy /Career Path of different
categories of specialist officers of the bank was
placed before the board for approval and he
Board Resolution for the same.
b) Appointment letter issued to XLRI by the No appointment letter was issued to
appropriate authority of Allahabad Bank. XLRI by the bank. However copy of
banks letter of offer dated 482005 (2
Pages) and can be provide d upon
payment of further fees of Rs.4/- (@ of
Rs.2/-per page of A-4 size) as per the
fees rules framed under the Act.
c) Report / Documents submitted to the Bank by the As advised by the concerned department,
said XLRI detailing the career Path of various providing such information would
categories of specialist Officers of Allahabad involve an infringement of MOU signed
Bank including Tea Officer. between the bank & XLRI.
Hence the information includes
commercial confidence and it is
exempted from disclosure under Section
8(1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005
d) Official report / suggestions / observations / Same as given in point 1 ©.
notes prepared and submitted by the committee
Page 1 of 3
of General managers at Head Office Level after
examining the report / documents submitted by
the consultant XLRI of Jamshedpur, detailing the
career Path of specialist officers of Allahabad
bank including Tea officers.
2) A writ petition WP No.2797 of 1993 (Sumit Same as given in point 1 ©.
Kumar Bose v/s Allahabad Bank & others) is still
pending before the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta
for a final decision /order regarding the promotion of
Tea Officer to a higher grade /Scale as a Specialist
Officer. Please tell-
a) Whether the present status of the aforesaid Writ Same as given in point 1 ©.
Petition was brought to the notice /knowledge of
the XLRI consultant before preparation and
submission of the report / documents to the bank
detailing the career path of various categories of
Specialist Officers of Allahabad Bank or not.
b) Whether the matter of the said Writ Petition was Same as given in point 1 ©.
taken into consideration by the committee of
General Managers at Head Office level during
their discussion and examination of the report /
documents submitted to the bank by XLRI
,before placing the proposal regarding Career
Path of specialist officers of Allahabad bank
including Tea Officer for Board’s approval or
not.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Non supply of certain documents by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
I have perused the RTI application, the disposal/decision of the CPIO & the appeal. The appellant was
not provided information on points 1 (c), 1 (d), 2(a) and 2(b)0 on the grounds that disclosure of
information would be an infringement of MOU between Bank & XLRI.
It is observed that under point 1 ‘(c) & 1(d) copies of reports are sought, whereas under2(a) &
2(b) only some confirmation is sought. ,
In many past decisions of the CIC, it was held that any material on the basis of which a decision is to
be taken, should be made public after the decision has been taken.(ìn this case, if the decision has
already been taken, the material can be made public, if it is otherwise not exempt from disclosure
under Section 8 & 9 of the Act. The CPIO should re-examine the matter.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant states that the direction of the FAA was not been complied with by the CPIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Sumit K.Bose, on video conference from NIC-Kochi Studio;
Respondent : Mr. Chitranjan Sahai, PIO & AGM(Law) on video conference from NIC-Kolkata
Studio;
The PIO appears to have sent most of the information to the Appellant. The appellant would
however like to inspect the relevant records on 06/09/2011 from 10.30AM onwards.
The PIO is directed to facilitate an inspection of the relevant records by the Appellant on
06 September 2011 from 10.30AM onwards at the office of the PIO. In case there are any records or
file which the appellant believes should exist, which are not shown to him, he will give this in writing
Page 2 of 3
to the PIO at the time of inspection and the PIO will either give the files/records or give it in writing
that such files/records do not exist.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to facilitate an inspection of the relevant records by the Appellant
on 06 September 2011 from 10.30AM onwards. The PIO will give attested photocopies
of records which the Appellant wants free of cost upto 100 pages.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
24 August 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (HA)
Page 3 of 3