CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi – 110067
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000211/18093
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000211
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. M. K. Sachan Punjab & Sind Bank, LDA Branch Lucknow
Respondent: Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Public Information Officer & Sr. Manager Punjab & Sind Bank, Zonal Office, Lalbagh, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
RTI application filed on: 24/12/2011
PIO replied: 22/01/2011
First Appeal: 03/02/2011 (remanded)
First Appellate Authority order: 30/04/2011
Second Appeal received on: 06/07/2011
Information Sought: Kindly provide certified copies of sanctioned leave applications of the following employees:
1-a) Sh Vijay Srivastava, for appearing before Hon’ble CIC, New Delhi on (2/2008 in Appeal No CIC/PB/A/2008/01618-SM.
b) Sh Susheel Sharma, for appearing before Hon’ble CIC, New Delhi on 07/07/2010 in Appeal No .CIC/SM/A/2009/0O (522
c) Sh M P Singh, Chief Manager. Hazaratganj Branch, Lucknow for appearing before the Hort’ble Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court in criminal Misc. Case No.lll5of200S(C)
d) Sh P C Mandal, for appearing before the Hon’ble RLC( C),Lucknow on 16/06/2009 in the matter of ID Case No.LKO-7( I -9)/2009
2-a) Kindly provide the certified copies of the Attendance Register of the employees posted at LDA Branch ,Lucknow for the month of October & Novernher,2010.
b) Name & place of posting of the employee, who was entrusted to hold the Cashier set of Cash keys during the absence of the Applicant for the period referred in para 2(a) above.
c) The amount of SpI. Pay paid to the employee mentioned in para 2(b) above. Certified copies of the rules relied for paying the said SpI. Pay may also kindly be made available
Reply of the PIO:
Point 1 (a) (b) (c), and (d) – The desired information can not be provided under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI act.
2 (a) The documents pertain to applicant for the period Oct 10 and Nov 2010 are enclosed. The attendance register can not be provided as it being third party information.
2 – The following employees were entrusted to held the cashier set of cash keys during your service referred in 2 (a).
(i) Sh Ram Kirat Singh clerk Bo LDA colony, Luck now on 04/11/2010 to 11/10/10 to 24/10/10 & 30/11/10
(ii) Sh Gairdhari Lal Clerk at Zonal office, Lucknow on 08/11/2010 & 11/11/2010, 26/10/2010 to 29/10/2010 and 18/11/2010 to 19/11/2010
3. No special pay has been paid to the above employees at 2 (a) (i) (ii)
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Information has not been provided sought in both the RTI applications.
Order of the FAA:
Now where appellant had sought leave rules instead he sought purpose of the leave.
“In my opinion the purpose of leave may be personal of. the concerned employee and since the purpose of leave is a part of leave applications/leave records and the same can be termed a personal information of the employee the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, The disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted ed invasion of the privacy of the individual concerned. As such I concur with the decision of the CPIO that the information desired are exempt from disclosure In terms of section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act.”
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
FAA has not been provided the requested information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. M. K. Sachan on video conference from NIC-Lucknow Studio;
Respondent: Mr. Abdul Mujeeb, PIO & Sr. Manager on video conference from NIC-Lucknow Studio; The PIO has refused to give information regarding the leave application and the attendance register claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Appellant states that the information he is seeking is relating to certain officials appearing before the Commission as appellants and being shown as present on the attendance register. The Commission notes that in numerous decisions the Commission has held that information relating to leave and the attendance registers cannot be considered to be exempt information since this is the information regarding the public activity. Taking into the consideration the Appellant’s contention that he was seeking information regarding people appearing before the Commission as appellant’s in their private capacity, it appears that the denial of information was with a purpose hide this information.
The Appellant has been harassed in coming to the Commission in the appeal since the PIO and the Fist Appellate Authority have not applied their mind at all and refused the information. In view of this the Commission under its powers under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act awards a compensation of Rs.2000/- to the Appellant for the harassment of filing the appeal and the delay in getting the information. This compensation is being awarded to compensate the appellant for the loss and detriment suffered by him.
The Appeal is allowed. The PIO is directed to provide the complete information to the Appellant before 15 April 2012. The PIO is also directed to ensure that a cheque of Rs. 2000/- as compensation is sent to the Appellant before 30 May 2012.
This decision is announced in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.