Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/PB/A/2008/01090-SM dated 29.02.2008
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated: 17 August 2009
Name of the Appellant : Shri U.V. Ramana,
Sri Ashok Telugu Monthly,
C.S.R. Building, Madanapalle,
Distt. Chittoor, A.P. - 517 325.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Andhra Bank,
Head Office, Dr. Pattabhi Bhawan,
5-9-11, Saifabad, Hyderabad - 4.
The Appellant was not present in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri P. Raghavan, was present.
2. In this case, the Appellant had, in his application dated February 29,
2008, requested the CPIO for a list of all the Branches of Andhra Bank in
India and also for a list of all the cases registered by the Vigilance Wing of
the Bank against the employees since January 2003 including the names and
other details of those employees. The CPIO replied on March 26, 2008 and
provided the information regarding the Branches of the Bank while denying
the information in respect of the Vigilance cases instituted against the
employees claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the Right to
Information (RTI) Act. The Appellant preferred an appeal against this order
before the first Appellate Authority on April 17, 2008. The Appellate
Authority disposed off the appeal in his order dated May 16, 2008. In his
order, he provided many details, year-wise, of all the cases registered by
the Departmental Vigilance Wing against the employees and including the
number of cases in which punishment was awarded. Not satisfied with this
order, the Appellant has approached the Central Information Commission in
second appeal.
3. The case was heard through videoconferencing. The Appellant was
not present in spite of notice. The Respondent was present in the
CIC/PB/A/2008/01090-SM
Hyderabad Studio of the NIC. We heard the submissions of the Respondent
and partly tend to agree with him that the details about the Vigilance cases
including the summary of the charge sheet, etc., could not be disclosed as
such information was personal in nature the disclosure of which would cause
unwarranted invasion in the privacy of the individuals concerned. However,
we think that some more details about the nature of punishment awarded in
these cases should be provided without disclosing the names of the
employees except those who were awarded major penalty of dismissal. In
view of this, we direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant within 10
working days from the receipt of this order, in a tabular format, the break-
up of the punishment cases under major and minor penalty heads and to
provide the names of those employees who were dismissed from service by
way of punishment.
4. The case is, thus, disposed off.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(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.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar
CIC/PB/A/2008/01090-SM