ALLAHABAD BANK Vs. NITESH KUMAR TRIPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In WP(C) No.906/2012, the respondent before this Court filed an application seeking certain information, including details of the assets declared by all officers above Scale-III of the petitioner bank. The said application was responded by the CPIO of the petitioner bank on 12th August, 2011. However, even before receipt of the reply from the CPIO, the respondent had already preferred an appeal before the first Appellate Authority. Vide order dated 26th August, 2011, the First Appellate Authority noticing that the appeal had been preferred even before disposal of the application by CPIO, directed that a copy of the reply of the CPIO be sent to the appellant before him. In compliance of the said order, the petitioner bank provided a copy of its earlier decision to the respondent vide its letter dated 5th September, 2011. The respondent before this Court preferred a Second Appeal before the Central Information Commission and also made a complaint to it under Section 18 of the RTI Act. Vide impugned order dated 1st February, 2012, the Commission, inter alia, directed as under:-

(2.) In WP(C) No.1191/2012, the respondent before this Court preferred an appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act before the First Appellate Authority alleging therein that no information had been supplied to him pursuant to his application dated 18/19 May, 2011, though the statutory period of 30 days had already expired. The First Appellate Authority, vide its letter dated 19th August, 2011 informed the respondent that no such application had actually been received by their PIO. Thereupon, the respondent made a complaint dated 18th August, 2011 to the Central Information Commission alleging therein that no information had been provided to him pursuant to his application dated 18th May, 2011 addressed to the CPIO of the petitioner bank. A copy of the said complaint was forwarded to the petitioner by the Under Secretary of the Commission for giving its explanation in the matter. On receipt of the copy of the complaint of the respondent, the CPIO of the petitioner responded by its communication dated 1st October, 2011. However, the information with respect to assets and liabilities of the officers in Gramin Bank, Triveni, Gramin Bank, Head Office Orrai and Allahabad UP Gramin Bank, Head Office Banda was not supplied to the respondent. The said complaint was disposed of by the Commission, vide its order dated 10th February, 2012. During the course of hearing of the complaint, the Commission noted the contention of the petitioner that it had supplied the required information except the information with respect to the assets and liabilities of the employees and details of the TA Bills. The Commission, vide impugned order dated 10th February, 2012 directed the PIO of the petitioner bank to provide information as about assets to the complainant.

(3.) Thus, the only question involved in these petitions is whether the information with respect to the assets and liabilities which an employee furnishes to his employer can be directed to be disclosed under RTI Act.