On behalf of the Respondents, Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CPIO was present at the NIC

Transcription

1 Central Information Commission, New Delhi File No. Right to Information Act 2005 Under Section (19) Date of hearing : 29th June 2016 Date of decision : 29th June 2016 Name of the Appellant : Shri Ramchandra S. Joshi, 111, 1st Floor, New Building, Shastri Hall, Tardeo Road, Mumbai Name of the Public Authority/Respondent : Central Public Information Officer, Bank of Baroda Mumbai Metro South Region: 3, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Gr. Floor, Ballard Pier, Mumbai RTI Application filed on : 16/12/2014 CPIO replied on : 22/01/2015 First Appeal filed on : 29/01/2015 First Appellate Authority order on : 09/03/ nd Appeal received on : 16/03/2015 The Appellant was present at the NIC Studio, Mumbai. On behalf of the Respondents, Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CPIO was present at the NIC Studio, Mumbai. Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal

2 Information sought This matter concerns an RTI application filed by the Appellant, seeking information on various points regarding recovery proceedings of five companies/groups mentioned in the RTI application. The CPIO reply The CPIO denied the information under section 8 (1) (j) read with section 11 of the RTI Act. Grounds of the First Appeal Not satisfied with the CPIO s reply. Order of the First Appellate Authority The FAA upheld the CPIO s reply. Grounds of the Second Appeal Not satisfied with the response of the Respondents. Relevant facts emerging during the Hearing, Discussion and Decision

3 The Appellant stated that he joined the service of the bank in 1967 and was Chief Manager when disciplinary action was initiated against him. It resulted in his dismissal from the service of the bank on He filed an appeal against his dismissal to the High Court. The bank has filed an affidavit before the High Court, stating that out of the alleged loss of Rs lacs, attributed to him (the Appellant), loss of Rs lacs has been recovered. However, the bank has not submitted the details of recovery to the Court and his terminal benefits are held up on account of the alleged loss. He complained that the bank did not pursue the recovery issue properly, but is blaming him for the loss caused to the bank. By way of an example, he stated that in one case, sale of one property in Mumbai would have more than recovered the amount of the loan. He prayed for provision of the information sought by him in respect of recovery in the case of five accounts, so as to enable him to establish that the loss attributed to him is not correct and claim his terminal benefits. 2. The Respondents stated that the information sought is regarding the accounts of third parties. The affidavit filed in the Court gives the information regarding the total recovery made, compromise reached with the account holders and the sacrifice suffered by the bank. The Respondents further submitted that they cannot provide the information such as the internal notes concerning the compromise reached by them with the account holders. They also stated that the recoveries concerning the accounts have been made as part of DRT proceedings and are not an independent action of the bank, as the Appellant appears to suggest. 3. The Appellant stated that since the matter is in the High Court, the information should be in the public domain. He reiterated that the bank did not make the recoveries

4 properly. In response to our query, the Appellant stated that the charges concerning the accounts in question against him pertained to the period We have considered the submissions of both the parties. The Appellant was dismissed from the service of the bank as a result of disciplinary proceedings and the matter concerning the dismissal is before the High Court. He has not stated that he was not given the relevant information concerning the loan accounts in question during the disciplinary proceedings. He now seeks the information concerning the developments pertaining to these loans, including recovery proceedings, much after the period of the charges against him and, in fact, mostly related to the period after his dismissal from the service of the bank. The ground cited is that his terminal benefits are held up and he needs to establish it before the High Court that not only a large part of the loss attributed to him has been recovered, but also that the bank has not acted properly in effecting the recoveries. In this context, we note that the bank has already filed an affidavit before the Court, mentioning not only the total amount of recovery made, but also the information concerning the compromise arrived at and the sacrifice suffered by the bank. The Respondents have further submitted that the recoveries have been made by them as part of the proceedings before the DRT. In the light of the foregoing, we see no ground to breach the bank s fiduciary relationship with its customers by disclosing the details now sought by the Appellant. Such information, governed by a fiduciary relationship, is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, in the absence of a finding of larger public interest. The Appellant has not established any larger public interest. His personal grievance regarding his terminal dues cannot become the ground of larger public interest. It would be up to the High Court to decide whether any further

5 information needs to be requisitioned from the bank in the context of the affidavit regarding the total amount of recovery filed by them. 5. In view of the foregoing, we uphold the decision of the Respondents to deny the information in this case. 6. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of. 7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties. Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal) 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) Deputy Registrar