ORDER

(25.07.2022)

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 27.06.2020 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 21.05.2020 and first appeal dated 22.06.2020:-

(i) “Please provide detail as in RTI application No: IBank/R/E/20/00190 dated 19.04.2020 bank’s reply for point no. 1 is “There is no exclusive policy for inter district transfers” so please provide list of female clerical staff with duly name who are transferred to other district as per your reply in RTI. And also explain if there is no such policy how the female candidates are being transferred to other districts.

(ii) Please provide details as in RTI application No: IBank/R/E/20/00190 dated 19.04.2020 bank’s reply for point no. 5 is “Regarding the information sought details are exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1) (j) – (as the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual and does not involve larger public interest) under the RTI act, hence no information is provided. As Mrs. Kavita HRM Dept working at Jaipur location has provided the deputation at Sri Ganganagar branch during lock- down period bank may deny the answer with brief explanation for this particular staff why she has been provided deputation duty on For Sri Ganganagar branch beside that no movement is allowed during lockdown period. It is involved in larger public interest under COVID 19 disease and bank cannot deny to parliament & state legislative assembly too & hence did not deny to them. So bank is not exempted under section 8 1(j). Provide details with order copy of deputation & attendance sheet with all brief answers related to Mrs. Kavita HRM Dept.”

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 21.05.2020 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indian Bank, Chennai , seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 25.06.2020 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 22.06.2020. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 26.06.2020 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 27.06.2020 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 27.06.2020 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 25.06.2020 and the same is reproduced as under :-

“Point no. 1 & 2 – Regarding the information sought, details are exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1) (j) – (as the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual and does not involve larger public interest) under the RTI Act, we express our inability to furnish the details sought.”

The FAA vide order dated 26.06.2020 replied and upheld the CPIO’s reply.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Partha Ghosh, Assistant General Manager, Indian Bank, Chennai, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had denied the information without giving any explanations about deputation of employees during lockdown. He further stated the disclosure of the information could not be denied since it was related to action taken by the public authority.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had sought information related to Ms. Kavita and in absence of any larger public interest, third party information was denied to the appellant. Moreover, the appellant had drawn reference from another RTI application and its corresponding reply and sought further clarification on the same.

6. The Commis