Disclosure of personal information is exempt under the RTI Act unless larger public interest is demonstrated.

ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.01.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1. I came to know that Sri Sundarapalli Mehar Baba (ex-staff supervising worked in your bank) was terminated from your bank services vide final order No. DMHUB(S)/AMA/KNR/2021-22/1318, dated 21/08/2021 issued by disciplinary authority, discipline management hub (south) Chennai, due to he received borrower's loan proceeds to his accounts through suppliers/intermediaries accounts, misappropriated public/customers money, and incurred financial and reputational loss to your bank while he was working in your Rangampeta branch, East Godavari district, Andhra Pradesh.

Now I request you to advise me the total amount of public money was misappropriated by him and how much amount of public/customer money misappropriated was recovered from his superannuation benefits till now.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 08.01.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-

“No such information is held with the public authority. The information sought by him is in the nature third party personal information in fiduciary capacity, therefore the same is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.01.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 29.01.2024 stated as under:-

“I have examined the application and the appeal of the appellant, and of the pinion that the information sought for by the applicant cannot be disclosed under RTI Act as it falls under the nature of commercial confidence and is exempted from disclosure under 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. Hence the appeal is dismissed.”

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 18.02.2024.

5. The appellant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the respondent Mr. L.P Rajshekhar, CPIO, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had sought the total amount of public money that was misappropriated by Mr. Sundarapalli Mehar Baba (ex-staff of bank) and how much amount of public/customer money misappropriated was recovered from his superannuation benefits till now. He stated that the above said information falls under the nature of commercial confidence and personal information of third party, hence, exempted u/s 8 (1) (d) & (j) of the RTI Act. A written statement dated 12.05.2025 of the respondent has been taken on record.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act vide letter dated 08.01.2024. Further, information sought falls under the nature of commercial confidence and personal information of third party. Hence, the CPIO correctly denied the information under Section 8(1) (d) & (j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of “personal information” envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information