IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SACHIN DATTA, J.
Chayan Ghosh Chowdhury – Petitioner
Versus
Punjab And Sind Bank Through Its CPIO & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 12204 of 2025
Decided On : 02-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed against cic decision (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. procedure of rti application appeals (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. cic's examination of personal information (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. background of respondent's promotions (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. petitioner's arguments on information access (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. court's agreement with cic's decision (Para 18 , 19) |
| 7. interpretation of 'public interest' in rti (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 8. final order dismissing the petition (Para 24) |
JUDGMENT :
SACHIN DATTA, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the Central Information Commission (‘CIC’) in Second Appeal No. CIC/PASBK/A/2024/615256, whereby the petitioner’s second appeal has been dismissed.
2. The controversy arises in the context of an RTI application dated 12.01.2024 filed by the petitioner. Essentially, the petitioner has sought service related records of the respondent no.2, who is stated to be a General Manager in Punjab and Sind Bank. The RTI application filed by the petitioner has been annexed as Annexure P-2 to the present petition. The same is reproduced as under:-
“The Public Information Officer,
Punjab & Sind Bank,
New Delhi – 110023 12.01.2024
Respected Sir,
Reg: Application Under RTI Act,2005
Background: As per information available in public domain, Shri Pankaj Dwivedi (P09475), presently working as General Manager and posted at Head Office of Punjab & Sind Bank, was promoted on 01/04/2018 (Scale V to Scale VI), pending Complaint dated 19/02/2018 under the provisions of The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. Shri Pankaj Dwivedi was again promoted on 01/04/2020 (Scale VI to Scale VII) pending criminal complaint under Sec. 354A & 509 of Indian Penal Code.
With reference to the above background, kindly provide inspection of following records, in terms of RTI Act, 2005:
1) Copy of the Vigilance Clearance Certificate relied by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) before the promotion of Shri Pankaj Dwivedi on 01/04/2018.
2) Copy of the Vigilance Clearance Certificate relied by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) before the promotion of Shri Pankaj Dwivedi on 01/04/2020.
3) File Noting including Office Notes (cover to cover), Circulars, OM, IBA, CVC guidelines, Board Resolution etc. relied by the Bank for Constitution of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for the purpose of promotion from Scale V to Scale VI for the year 2018.
4) File Noting including Office Notes (cover to cover), Circulars, OM, IBA, CVC guidelines, Board Resolution etc. relied by your Bank for Constitution of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for the purpose of promotion from Scale VI to Scale VII for the year 2020.
5) Name, official telephone no & Email address of the Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO)
a) As on 01/04/2018
b) As on 01/04/2020
c) As on date of providing information.
Note: The certified copies of the relevant records shall be obtained after inspection.
(Chayan Ghosh Chowdhury)”
3. It is submitted that having received no response from the Central Public Information Officer (“CPIO”) within the statutory period of 30 days prescribed under Section 7 (1) of the RTI Act, the petitioner preferred a First Appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Act vide Appeal No. PASBK/A/E/24/00018 dated 13.02.2024.
4. It is averred that after the expiry of the statutory period, the CPIO, responded to the RTI application on 16.03.2024. Except for the information sought under Paragraph 5 of the application, the remaining information was denied by the CPIO by invoking Section 8(1)(j). The reply dated 16.03.2024 passed by the CPIO is reproduced as under –
5. It is further submitted that no order was passed by the First Appellate Authority (“FAA”) within the prescribed timeframe. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a Second Appeal under Section 19 (3) of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission (“CIC”), vide Appeal No.
Central Board of Secondary Education vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay
Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors.
Under the RTI Act, personal information related to government employees is exempt from disclosure unless a demonstrable larger public interest exists.
Requests for personal information must demonstrate public interest; privacy rights protected under RTI Act exemptions.
The court established that communications between public authorities regarding an employee's performance, when classified as private, do not warrant disclosure under the RTI Act if they do not relate....
Information pertaining to disciplinary proceedings, corruption complaints, and performance reports of public servants constitutes personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and is exem....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.