Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2010/900716 & 900736
Right to Information Act2005 Under Section (19)
Date of hearing / Date of decision :7 December 2010
Name of the Appellant : Shri Surendra Myneni
Seethaiah Linga, Flat No. 11,
Madhu Kunj Apartments, 1st Floor,
Opp. City Civil Court, SP Road, Hyderabad.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Andhra Bank,
Head Office, Dr. Pattabhi Bhawan,
The Appellant was not present in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Aditya Narayan Upadhyay, Law Officer was present.
On behalf of the third party, Shri Hanumant Rao was present.
Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
Elements of the decision:
Section 8(1)(d), (e) & (j) CPIO is directed to provide information.
2. We heard these two cases together through video conferencing. The Appellant had already informed that he would not be able to attend the hearing in person. The Respondent was present in the Hyderabad studio of the NIC along with the third party concerning whom the Appellant had sought several information. The Appellant had sent his detailed written arguments in support of his request for information. We heard the submissions of both the Respondent and the third party present during the hearing.
3. In one of his applications (8 January 2010), the Appellant had sought extensive
details about both the movable and immovable properties held not only by the third
party officer of the bank but also those held by the wife and his children. The CPIO
had denied the information by claiming exemption under Section 8(1) (d), (e) and (j) of
the Right to Information (RTI) Act. After carefully considering the written submissions
of the Appellant and oral submissions made by the Respondent and the third party
concerned during the hearing, we tend to agree with the findings of the CPIO in this
matter. We have consistently held that the property returns filed by an employee are in
the nature of personal information and cannot be disclosed unless it would serve a
larger public interest. Disclosure of such information would amount to unwarranted
invasion of the privacy of the employee concerned. We understand that the Appellant
has a dispute with his wife and the employee about whom the information has been
sought is the father in law of the Appellant. The information sought in connection with
a private family dispute cannot be said to be serving any larger public interest.
Therefore, we do not find any merit in the arguments of the Appellant.
4. In his application dated 3 November 2009 addressed to the CPIO of the Ministry of Finance which had been later transferred to the CPIO of the bank, the Appellant had sought a variety of information relating to the disciplinary proceedings against the same employee. Although the CPIO had provided some information, we find that he had not supplied the photocopies of the relevant documents. Information regarding the disciplinary proceedings/departmental action against the employees cannot be classified as personal information. Therefore, we now direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant within 10 working days from the receipt of this order the photocopy of the entire file regarding any action taken against the said employee including the copy of the letter seeking explanation, the explanation offered by the employee and the final decision taken by the competent authority in the matter. We also direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant the copy of the relevant rules, if any,under which action can be taken against an employee for giving or encouraging giving of dowry.
5. With the above directions, both the appeals are disposed off.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
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.
CIC/SM/A/2010/900716 & 900736