File Nos. CIC/SH/A/2014/002644, CIC/SH/A/2015/001317, CIC/SH/A/2015/001394, CIC/MP/A/2015/000805/SH, CIC/SH/A/2014/002692, CIC/SH/A/2014/002706, CIC/SH/A/2014/002748, CIC/SH/A/2014/002869, CIC/SH/A/2014/003194, CIC/SH/A/2015/000384, CIC/SH/A/2015/000415, CIC/SH/A/2014/002552, CIC/SH/A/2014/002601, CIC/SH/A/2014/002766, CIC/SH/A/2014/002916 and .... Case: Arvind Kumar Sinha Vs Central Public Information Officer, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank and Ors.. Central Information Commission
| Case Number | File Nos. CIC/SH/A/2014/002644, CIC/SH/A/2015/001317, CIC/SH/A/2015/001394, CIC/MP/A/2015/000805/SH, CIC/SH/A/2014/002692, CIC/SH/A/2014/002706, CIC/SH/A/2014/002748, CIC/SH/A/2014/002869, CIC/SH/A/2014/003194, CIC/SH/A/2015/000384, CIC/SH/A/2015/000415, CIC/SH/A/2014/002552, CIC/SH/A/2014/002601, CIC/SH/A/2014/002766, CIC/SH/A/2014/002916 and ... |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Party-in-Person and For Respondents: Mayank Kumar Sinha, APIO and Bagiss Prasad Mishra, Regional Officer |
| Judges | Sharat Sabharwal, Information Commissioner |
| Issue | Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 2(f), 8(1), 8(1)(d), 8(1)(e), 8(1)(j) |
| Judgement Date | December 03, 2015 |
| Court | Central Information Commission |
|
|
Decision: Sharat Sabharwal, Information Commissioner 1. These files contain appeals in respect of the RTI applications dated 15.7.2014 (two applications), 16.7.2014, 18.7.2014, 25.7.2014, 11.8.2014 (two applications), 3.9.2014, 15.9.2014, 26.9.2014, 11.11.2014, 12.11.2014, 13.11.2014, 12.2.2015, 14.2.2015 and 2.3.2015, filed by the Appellant, seeking information on various issues in the context of disciplinary proceedings against him. Not satisfied with the response of the Respondents, he has approached the CIC in second appeal in all the cases. 2. In the RTI application dated 3.9.2014 (File No. 2644), the Appellant had sought information regarding the officers of the bank, who were caught red handed while accepting bribes by the Vigilance Department of the Bihar Government and against whom action was taken, along with details of the action taken. The CPIO denied the information under Section 8(1)(d). The FAA upheld the order of the CPIO and claimed exemption from disclosure of information under Section 8(1)(d), (g) and (h) of the RTI Act. The Appellant stated that the information is being denied deliberately because the bank has followed a duplicitous policy of taking action against some officers, while sparing others. The Respondents reiterated their decision to deny the information. In the RTI application dated 14.2.2015 (File No. 1317), the Appellant sought information concerning the policy of the bank regarding action against employees convicted by a court of law on corruption charges and the action taken by the bank against a third party employee named in the application. In his reply dated 10.3.2015, the CPIO mentioned the regulations governing action against such officers and stated that action against the third party employee concerned was also taken under the same regulations. The Appellant stated that he has not been given the details of the regulations/policy. The Respondents stated that the Appellant is aware of the details because action against him was also taken under the same regulations. At this point, the Appellant stated that he should be provided details of the action taken against the above mentioned third party employee. 3. We have considered the submissions of both the parties with regard to the two applications mentioned in the preceding paragraph. The Appellant wants information regarding disciplinary/other action taken against third party employees of the bank. In this context, we note the following observations made by the... |
To continue reading
Request your trial