Central Information Commission Judgements

Shri.Umesh Chandra Adim vs Punjab National Bank on 25 November, 2010

Central Information Commission
Shri.Umesh Chandra Adim vs Punjab National Bank on 25 November, 2010
                   Central Information Commission, New Delhi
                          File No.CIC/SM/A/2010/000684
                Right to Information Act­2005­Under Section  (19)




Date of hearing                    :                                25 November 2010


Date of decision                   :                                25 November 2010



Name of the Appellant              :       Shri Umesh Chandra, 
                                           Adim, H No. MS 1/39, Sector, 
                                           Jankipuram, Sitapur Road scheme, 
                                           Lucknow - 226020


Name of the Public Authority       :       Central Public Information Officer,
                                           Punjab National Bank, 
                                           Zonal Office, 
                                           1227 Napiear Town, 
                                           Jabalpur U.P.



       The Appellant was not present in spite of notice.

       On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Ramadar Singh, was present.

Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra

Decision Notice

Appeal disallowed

Elements of the decision:

Section 8(1)(j) 

CIC/SM/A/2010/000684

2. We heard this case through videoconferencing. The Appellant was not 

present in the Lucknow studio of the NIC. The Respondent was present in the 

Jabalpur studio.

3. We   heard   the   submissions   of   the   Respondent.   The   Appellant   had 

requested for several information regarding the PAF rating given to MMG Scale 

III officers in the Jabalpur Circle of the bank. The CPIO had refused to disclose 

this information by claiming it to be third­party personal information. He had 

cited the provisions of Section 8(1) (j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act in 

support   of   his   decision.   The   Appellate   Authority   had   provided   some   more 

information against some of the queries while endorsing the decision of the 

CPIO in the matter of the nondisclosure of the PAF ratings of other officers.

4. We carefully considered the submissions made by the Respondent as 

well   as   the   facts   of   the   case.   We   noted   that   between   the   CPIO   and   the 

Appellate Authority, all the information that could have been given has already 

been   provided.   The   information   regarding   the   PAF   ratings   given   to   other 

officers   including   the   copies   of   the   evaluation   sheets   could   not   have   been 

disclosed   since   the   disclosure   of   such   information,   clearly   in   the   nature   of 

personal information, could cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of those 

officers. Thus, the decision of the CPIO and Appellate Authority is right and 

cannot be faulted

5. There   is   nothing   more   to   be   done   in   this   case.   It   is   disposed   of 

accordingly.

6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.

CIC/SM/A/2010/000684
(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/SM/A/2010/000684