Back
2021 Supreme(Del) 1953
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M.Singh, J.
Rakesh Kumar Gupta (erstwhile Cpio) Union Bank Of India & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Central Information Commission & Anr. - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 900 of 2021; Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 2395 of 2021
Decided On : 22-01-2021
O.P. Gaggar, Advocate, Gaurang Kanth, Advocate, Aman Singh Bakhshi, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the solemn responsibility of CPIOs under the RTI Act, emphasizing their duty to diligently search for information and the prohibition against withholding information without reasonable cause.
Headnote:
RTI Act - Union Bank of India - Section 8(1)(d) - Section 20(1) - The court discussed the RTI Act and its provisions, particularly Section 8(1)(d) and Section 20(1), and emphasized the responsibilities of CPIOs under the Act. The court highlighted the principles that CPIOs cannot withhold information without reasonable cause, must diligently search for information, and cannot function merely as 'post offices'. The court also emphasized that CPIOs have a duty of compliance and must apply their mind before directing disclosure or non-disclosure of information.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a petition filed by two officers and the Union Bank of India challenging penalties imposed on them by the Central Information Commission (CIC) for not providing complete information in response to an RTI application.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the CPIOs had initially denied the information citing Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, but later claimed that the documents were not traceable. The court concluded that this change in stand indicated an intention to withhold information, leading to the finding of mala fides and unreasonable conduct.
Issues: The main issue was whether the penalties imposed on the CPIOs were justified under the RTI Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the responsibilities of CPIOs under the RTI Act, particularly the duty to diligently search for information and the prohibition against withholding information without reasonable cause.
Final Decision: The court upheld the penalties imposed on the CPIOs, but reduced the amount due to their retirement from service.
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. - This hearing has been done through video conferencing.
2. The present petition has been filed by two officers, who were working with the Union Bank of India as Central Public Information Officers (hereinafter, "CPIO), as also the Union Bank itself, challenging the impugned order dated 14th December, 2020 passed by the Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission (hereinafter, "CIC"), vide which, penalties amounting to Rs. 10,000/- each have been imposed upon the Petitioners.
3. The background of this case is that an RTI application was filed on 9th January, 2018, by the Applicant/Respondent No.2 (hereinafter, "Applicant") who was a Chief Manager at the Union Bank of India, seeking the following information:
"In this connection I request you to furnish me details of the Board approval along with justification for giving exemption with regard to 3 years branch head service (which was declared vide staff circular no: 6511 dated 23.12.2016)."
4. In reply to the said RTI application, the office of the CPIO informed the Applicant that copy of the board note, being an internal document of commercial confidence and hence exempted from disclosure, cannot be furnished. The relevant extract of the said response reads as under:-
"In this connection, we have to inform you that being a staff member, you are well aware of the guidelines of the Bank issued from time to time which are easily available in UBINET, Bank's internal web portal. However, we may inform you that matter regarding completion of three years as Branch Head as eligibility criteria is clarified in Staff Circular No. 6685 dated 30.10.2017. Please note that copy of Board note cannot be furnished as the same is internal documents of the Bank and of commercial confidence which is exempted from disclosure under s. 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. However, guidelines of the Bank in above matter, based on the Board approval, is circulated vide above Staff Circular."
5. The Applicant thereafter filed an appeal with the Appellate Authority under the RTI Act. The said Appellate Authority also disposed of the appeal stating that copy of the board approval was exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. The relevant extract of the order by the Appellate Authority, reads as under:-
"4. I have carefully examined the RTI request, disposal by the CPIO d and appeal. I agree with the contention of CPIO that information which could be disclosed in terms of the RTI Act, has already been provided. I also agree with the contention of CPIO that copy of Board approval regarding relaxation cannot be provided as the same is exempted from disclosure under s. 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. Appeal is therefore rejected and disposed of accordingly."
6. The Applicant, thereafter, filed a second appeal before the Information Commissioner, CIC. The CIC, vide order dated 29th January, 2020, after examining the responses provided, found that there was no reason why complete information was not provided to the Applicant, and held that the responses provided were rather incomplete and evasive. A showcause notice was then issued to the CPIOs of the Bank at the relevant point in time, as to why penalty should not be imposed on them for not providing complete information to the Applicant. The relevant portion of the said order reads:
"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, notes that reply given by the respondent was incomplete and evasive. It is noted that the bank had taken approval from the board for giving exemption in three year branch head service, but the same was taken before 2016 or after 2016 was not clarified by the respondent. Further, the Commission feels that proper information was not provided by the respondent even after lapse of around two years from the date
