Manjula Prasher ORDER
Manjula Prasher, Information Commissioner
1. The appellant, Shri Sudhir Kumar Jain submitted RTI application dated 19.03.2015 to the Central Public Information Officer, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services (DFS), New Delhi stating that he was appointed as CMD of Syndicate Bank vide notification dated 8.7.2013 of Ministry of Finance, DFS, New Delhi for a period of 5 years. Pursuant to registration of a case against him by the CBI his services were put under suspension w.e.f. 2.8.2014 vide order dated 4.8.2014 issued by Under Secretary, DFS. Subsequently, the Government of India had terminated his services under Clause (1A) of clause 8 of the Nationalized Banks (Management & Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme 1970/1980 vide order dated 22.09.2014. He sought copy of entire note sheet of his suspension and termination along with all background papers, enclosures pertaining to the same.
2. The CPIO vide letter No. 25/1/2015/Vig dated 13.03.2015 informed the appellant that information sought was held in Vigilance files of DFS which were marked as 'confidential' included notes, correspondence, comments, OMs containing the sources, names of persons who assisted the law-enforcement authority in carrying out its duties and other sensitive details, which if, disclosed could impair the very process of law enforcement in this as well as in future cases. Such information fell within the exemption provision of Section 8(1)(g) & (h) of the RTI Act, 2005. Aggrieved with the decision of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA) on 24.03.2015. The FAA vide order dated 09.04.2015 held that the CPIO had passed the order in accordance with the extant rule position.
3. Thereafter dissatisfied with the decision of the respondents, the appellant submitted the instant appeal to the Commission on 18.06.2015 on the grounds that the respondents had wrongly taken the shelter of provisions of Section 8(1)(g) and (h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that the respondents wrongly denied information under the provisions of Section 8(1)(g) and (h) of the RTI Act, 2005, whereas he sought the procedure followed by the Ministry of Finance for the suspension and termination of his services. The information sought was entirely unrelated to the investigation carried out. In support of his contention where the information was denied u/s. 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 he cited the order of High Court of Delhi in the matter of Bhagat Singh Vs. CIC & Ors. dated 03.12.2007 in which the Hon'ble High Court held that "Para 16 ... In view of the foregoing discussion the orders of the CIC dated 8.5.2006 in so far as it withholds information until tax recovery orders are made, is set aside. The second and third respondents are directed to release the information sought, on the basis of the materials available and collected with them within two weeks". The appellant further quoted another full bench decision of the CIC in the matter of Shri G.S. Sandhu Vs. UPSC [case No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001771 dated 01.05.2013] in which the Commission held "para 20... The appellant herein is seeking file nothings about his own case. He is not seeking information about any third party. It has been the consistent view of this Commission in a catena of its decisions that file notings are disclosable to the information seekers unless they are non-disclosable under any specific provision of the RTI Act. We are unable to accept the contention of the UPSC that the requested information is covered under clause (j) of section 8(1). As held by the bench of Shri Wajahat Habibullah, former CIC, the file notings are a public activity, they are not personal information. Hence, the contention of the UPSC has to be rejected. Another contention of the UPSC that file noting........