File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/002082. Case: Balram M. Bathija Vs Central Public Information Officer, Central Bank of India. Central Information Commission

Case NumberFile No. CIC/SH/A/2014/002082
CounselFor Appellant: Party-in-Person and For Respondents: B.P. Sankar, CPIO
JudgesSharat Sabharwal, Information Commissioner
IssueRight To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 8(1), 8(1)(j)
Judgement DateNovember 06, 2015
CourtCentral Information Commission

Court Information Central Information Commission Cases
Judgment Date 06-Nov-2015
Party Details Balram M. Bathija Vs Central Public Information Officer, Central Bank of India
Case No File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/002082
Judges Sharat Sabharwal, Information Commissioner
Advocates For Appellant: Party-in-Person and For Respondents: B.P. Sankar, CPIO
Acts Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 8(1), 8(1)(j)

Decision:

Sharat Sabharwal, Information Commissioner

1. This matter, pertaining to an RTI application dated 4.6.2012 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on six points regarding payment of interest on late disbursal of part salary arrears and late transfer of PF contributions to the Trust and related issues, came up today. The Appellant stated that he was not satisfied with the information provided in response to all the points of his RTI application. In this context, we note that at point (A), the Appellant sought copies of bank's circulars, if any, prohibiting payment of interest on late disbursal of salary and late transfer of PF contributions. The CPIO stated categorically that no such circulars were available and we see no ground to interfere with his reply. At points (B) and (C), the Appellant sought calculation sheet/payment/credit voucher etc. for making payment of interest on late released salary arrears of one Shri D.L. Khanijo, Assistant General Manager, "somewhere in the year around 2003"(sic) and a copy of the order of "disciplinary authority, Appellate Authority and Review Authority" in respect of the above person. The CPIO denied the information under Section 8(1)(j). The Appellant quoted Commission's decision No. CIC/VS/A/2012/000104/02776 dated 11.4.2013 in which the Commission had directed disclosure of information concerning departmental enquiry against a third party employee to an RTI applicant on the ground that the RTI applicant wished to pursue a case concerning his having been given higher level of punishment than the third party employee in a matter. In the above context, we note the following observations made by the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 3.10.2012 in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner & Ors.:--

"13. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT