Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2010/000661
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 19 November 2010
Date of decision : 23 November 2010
Name of the Appellant : Smt. Bimla Devi,
D/o Sh. Tilak Ram,
R/o 0206207, Vani Vihar,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi - 59.
Name of the Public Authority : Central Public Information Officer,
Punjab National Bank,
Circle Office, Shimla, H.P
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Mukesh Anand, Chief Manager, was
present.
Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
Decision Notice
Appeal partially accepted.
Elements of the decision:
Section 8(1)(d) CPIO directed to provide information
2. Both the parties were present during the hearing and made their
submissions. The Appellant had requested the CPIO for a number of details
regarding the loans sanctioned to one Hari Kishan, an employee of the Bank.
The CPIO had denied the information by claiming that it was thirdparty
customer information although he had not cited any exemption provision in
support of his decision.
CIC/SM/A/2010/000661
3. During the hearing, the Appellant reported that the said employee was
her former husband and that after their divorce, she had been contesting in a
court of law for maintenance and that she wanted this information in connection
with that. On the other hand, the Respondent submitted that the loan details of
the customers including the present one were held by the Bank in commercial
confidence and if they would disclose this, it might adversely affect the
competitive position of the customer. We tend to agree with this argument. In
numerous decisions, the CIC has held that the loan and other account details of
thirdparty customers should not be ordinarily disclosed as exempted under
Section 8(1) (d) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Therefore, the desired
information cannot be disclosed.
4. However, during the hearing, the Appellant brought to our notice that the
CPIO of the Bank had refused to disclose the salary certificate/slip of this
employee by claiming it to be personal information. Similarly, she informed that
the CPIO had also declined to disclose details regarding any disciplinary action
being taken by the Bank against this particular employee for any alleged
misconduct. If it is so, the decision of the CPIO is not right. Under the provisions
of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the compensation paid to any employee
including the salary and other allowances must be disclosed proactively.
Withholding it from the citizens is totally against the letter and spirit of the Act.
Similarly, information regarding disciplinary action taken against an employee
can also be disclosed once the proceedings are complete. If the proceeding are
not complete, the CPIO can always inform if any such disciplinary proceedings
have been initiated against any particular employee or not. We hope that the
CPIO of the Bank would keep this in mind while dealing with such requests in
future and we direct him to provide to the Appellant within 10 days of the receipt
CIC/SM/A/2010/000661
of this order the following information:
(i) copies of the salary slips/certificates of the said employee for the
last one year, and
(ii) information if any disciplinary proceedings have been instituted
against him.
5. With the above directions, the appeal is disposed off.
6. 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/SM/A/2010/000661