Whether information relating to Departmental Enquiries are Personal Information
and can not be accessed under the RTI Act. Two decisions of CIC one from Smt.
Padma Balasubramanyam in Appeal No. 985/ICPB/2007 dated 25.9.2007 and another
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00362 DT. 23.7.2008 issued by Sri.A N Tiwari
are reproduced below:
Smt. Padma Balasubramanyam Appeal No. 985/ICPB/2007 dt.25.9.2007:
Appellant : Sunmit Agarwal
Respondent : State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
Chief Manager & CPIO
Having not received any response from the CPIO the appellant filed his first
appeal dated 20/2/07 to the AA. Since there was no response from the AA also
the appellant filed an appeal before the State Information Commission. The
State Information Commission forwarded the same to the CIC vide their letter
dated 26/3/07. The comments of the Public Authority was called for vide letter
dated 8/5/07. The Public Authority furnished their comments vide letter dated
25/5/07. The appellant has also submitted to the rejoinder dated 28/5/07.
I have gone through the RTI request, appeal, comments of the Public Authority
as well as rejoinder submitted by the appellant. I find that the appellant has
sought documents which are not related to him. In fact these relate to an
employee of the Bank, Sh. Shekhawat who was charge sheeted and the appellant is
in no way connected with it. The CPIO has denied him the information under
Section 8 (1) (j) being third party information and disclosure, being not in
the 2
Public interest. In the circumstances I am inclined to agree with the stand
taken by the CPIO. Accordingly I reject the appeal, being devoid of merit. On
the above lines the appeal is disposed off.
Let its copy be given to the CPIO Appellate Authority and appellant.
Sd/-
(Padma Balasubramanian)
Information Commissioner
order from SRI. A.N.TIWARI
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00362
DT. 23.7.2008
Appellant : Shri. D S Thakur
Respondent: Office of the Controller & Auditor General of India
This matter came up for hearing on 16.07.2008 pursuant to Commission’s hearing
notice dated 02.06.2008. Appellant was present in person, while the respondents
were represented by Shri R.Srinivasan, Director (L)..
2. It was pointed out to the respondents that the information in respect of a
third-party requested by the appellant could not have been withheld from
disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act as was done by the respondents,
through the CPIO’s communication dated 12.06.2007 and the Appellate Authority’s
decision dated 30.07.2007.
3. The departmental enquiries in the matter of the third-party, viz.
Dr.Y.R..Midha, ex-Accountant General is over and a penalty has also been
imposed on him. There is no reason why such information should be withheld from
an applicant on the plea that it belonged to a third-party. An investigation or
disciplinary action against an officer of the public authority is properly an
activity of the public authority and cannot be said to be a
third-party-information related to the officer enquired into. Although such
information cannot be disclosed during the pendency of the enquiry /
investigation; that is no reason why the information should be withheld from
disclosure even after the enquiry or the investigation is completed. As such,
the position taken by the respondents was not entirely defensible.
4. Respondents agreed to the suggestion of the Commission and handed over the
requested information to the appellant during the hearing itself.
5. As the information has been fully disclosed, this appeal is closed at the
Commission’s end.
6. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
7. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
This clearly shows that information on Departmental Enquiry can be accessible
from the Controller & Auditor General of India and whereas the same is exempted
under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act in Public Sector Banks. Based on the decision
of Smt. Padma Balasubramanyam, all the Public Sector Banks are denying
information on Departmental Enquiry under section 8(i)(j) of the Act.
My RTI application with Canara Bank was rejected both by PIO as well as First
Appellate Authority citing the orders of Smt. Padma Balasubramanyam.
This is how the ACt has been killed by the Hon'ble Smt. Padma
Balasubramanyam. She should be sacked immediately. Due to her faulty
decisions thousands of applications in Public Sector Banks are being rejected
by misinterpreting the Act.
B.H. VEERESHA
MAHITHI HAKKU ADHYAYANA KENDRA
54, 17TH CROSS, M C LAYOUT
VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 040
TEL.NO. 9448704693
Connect with friends all over the world. Get Yahoo! India Messenger at
http://in.messenger.yahoo.com/?wm=n/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
