Appeal Nos. CIC/MP/A/2015/000065, CIC/MP/A/2015/000298, CIC/MP/A/2015/000324 CIC/MP/A/2015/000392, CIC/MP/A/2015/000438, CIC/MP/A/2015/000563, CIC/MP/A/2015/000574, CIC/MP/A/2015/000610, CIC/MP/A/2015/001046 and CIC/MP/A/2015/001063. Case: Balvir Singh Kachhwaha Vs State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Jodhpur/Jaisalmer. Central Information Commission
| Case Number | Appeal Nos. CIC/MP/A/2015/000065, CIC/MP/A/2015/000298, CIC/MP/A/2015/000324 CIC/MP/A/2015/000392, CIC/MP/A/2015/000438, CIC/MP/A/2015/000563, CIC/MP/A/2015/000574, CIC/MP/A/2015/000610, CIC/MP/A/2015/001046 and CIC/MP/A/2015/001063 |
| Counsel | For Respondents: Sanjeev Kumar Mathur, Manager |
| Judges | Manjula Prasher, Information Commissioner |
| Issue | Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 2(f), 8(1)(d), 8(1)(e), 8(1)(j) |
| Judgement Date | November 27, 2015 |
| Court | Central Information Commission |
|
|
Decision: Manjula Prasher, Information Commissioner No. CIC/MP/A/2015/000392 1. Vide his RTI application dated 19.8.2014 addressed to the CPIO, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Jodhpur, Shri Balvir Singh Kachhwaha sought information regarding Shri Rajesh Singh Gehlot, Dy Manager with reference to his date of posting at DGM Sectt, Zonal Office, Jodhpur, dates, duration, place and designation at three earlier postings, basis of his being posted at Jodhpur Centre along with his medical certificate, while questioning whether rules relating to posting were different for, Shri Rajesh Singh Gehlot and his brother, Bharat Singh Kachhwaha, etc. through 9 points. 1.1. The CPIO gave a point wise reply giving the date of posting of Shri Gehlot at Jodhpur, his three earlier postings and added that Shri Gehlot had been posted at Jodhpur in accordance with the rules of the bank. The provision of medical certificate of Shri Gehlot had been denied u/s. 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and on all other points, the CPIO had duly responded to the appellant. 1.2. Not satisfied, the appellant made an appeal to the first appellate authority who concurred with the decision of the CPIO vide his order dated 31.10.2014. The appellant was still not quite satisfied and appealed to the Commission stating that he had not been provided any response within 30 days of his appeal and also he had not been provided any information regarding the copies of the medical certificates of Shri Gehlot by denying these u/s. 8(1)(j) of the Act and that this had been done to create obstacle in his way of getting information. He added that any information which can be given to the Parliament or the State Legislature cannot be denied to anybody. He also questioned the basis of posting of Shri Gehlot and also stated that different yardsticks were being followed for posting of Shri Gehlot and his brother, Shri Bharat Singh Kachhwaha. His brother was transferred out of Jodhpur on completion of three years. He has also questioned the designation and address of the first appellate authority given by the CPIO in his decision. 1.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant had intimated his inability to attend the hearing. The respondents stated that the appellant had sought various information about transfers and postings of Shri Rajesh Singh Gehlot, an officer of the bank, including his medical certificates. They had duly provided the information regarding the date and place of posting and the dates of posting and duration of his earlier three postings, the tenure for posting at a particular place and also responded that the service rules were applicable to all the officers. They had, however, declined to provide the medical certificate of Shri Gehlot u/s. 8(1)(j) as it was his personal information and no larger public interest was involved in the matter. 1.5. The Commission observes that the respondents had provided all disclosable information with reference to the appellant's RTI application excepting what pertained to the third party and came within the purview of the exemption provided u/s. 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as this would be an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third party. The respondents had clearly stated that the transfers and posting were done as per the policy of the bank. The Commission upholds the decision of the respondents. No. CIC/MP/A/2015/000610 2. Vide his RTI application dated 3.9.2014 addressed to the CPIO, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Jodhpur, the appellant had sought information regarding the reasons for transfer of officers who had spent more than three years in Jodhpur centre during the period from 29.6.2012 to 31.8.2012 yet were transferred in Jodhpur centre itself, copies of the medical certificate if any officer had been posted in Jodhpur centre during the above mentioned period, why were the officers not transferred on completion of three years and relieved of their charge while his brother, Shri Bharat Singh Kachhwaha was transferred and relieved immediately on completion of three years and why was his brother not transferred to Jodhpur in spite of the position that he had requested for this transfer on the grounds of his knee operation, etc. through 11 points. 2.1. Vide his response dated 13.10.2014, the CPIO intimated that the information with reference to point 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 had been provided vide their letter dated 4.9.2014 while enclosing a copy of the same. The information sought for in points 7, 8 and 11 could not be termed as information as this did not come within the purview of section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. And with reference to point 3, the CPIO had intimated that providing the copy of the medical certificate of others was exempt u/s. 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act being personal information and also no larger public interest was involved in the matter. The appellant, vide first appeal dated 15.10.2014, approached the first appellate authority stating that he had the right to appeal as Shri Bharat Singh Kachhwaha was his younger brother and the CPIO had intentionally denied information besides information sought was not provided to him within the time bound period. The FAA concurred with the decision of the CPIO. 2.2. Dissatisfied with the FAA's decision, the appellant made an appeal to the Commission stating that the information given to him was incorrect. He had not sought any information which was confidential, the information sought also did not come u/s. 8(1)(j) and (f) and repeated that the information that can be provided to the Parliament and State Legislature cannot be denied to any individual. 2.3. The respondents reiterated their stand and stated that all disclosable information with reference to the appellant's RTI application, excepting what pertained to the third party and came within the purview of the exemption u/s. 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, was provided to the appellant. 2.4. The Commission accepts the submissions of the respondents and holds that the respondents had provided information to the appellant as per available records and permissible under the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed of. No. CIC/MP/A/2015/000298 3. Vide his RTI application dated 3.9.2014, the appellant sought information as sought in another RTI application with minor changes addressed to CPIO and... |
To continue reading
Request your trial