M. SWAMINATHAN Vs. CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE files contain complaints in respect of the following RTI applications: - -

(2.) WE heard the submissions of the Complainant and the Respondents. The Respondents stated that the following two RTI applications before us today were the subject matter of appeals considered by the Commission in its order No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000009/SG/15469 dated 4.11.2011: - -

(3.) WITH regard to the RTI application dated 19.8.2010 (File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000127), we note that point -wise reply was given by the CPIO in his letter dated 3.9.2010. On the queries regarding VRS scheme, he stated that it was not possible to provide the information as the records/files pertaining to VRS 2000 were destroyed in a fire accident that took place at the Head Office building on 11.11.2008. The Complainant stated during the hearing that the police authorities informed him that the fire took place only on the 5th floor of the office and some of the records should be available on the other floors or in other offices. The Respondents submitted that the fire indeed took place on the 5th floor of the office and reiterated that all the relevant records were destroyed in the same. They further submitted that they are not in a position to provide any information concerning the VRS issue. The above application also contains six points seeking copy of the service sheet of Smt. Girija Kalyanaraman, Officer of the Bank, who had obtained VRS during the year 2000, copy of the inspection reports/statutory audit reports etc. relating to the period when Smt. Kalayanaraman was working as Manager of a branch of the bank, copy of the Demand Promissory Note time barred report generated in the concerned branch, copies of inspection reports/statutory audit reports for a period of three years subsequent to Smt. Kalayanaraman leaving the charge of the above branch and copy of her personal file. The CPIO denied the above information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, stating that it was personal information of the above mentioned officer. In the above context, we note that the information sought by the Complainant covers not only documents containing a good deal of personal information of the above officer, such as her personal file etc., but also audit reports etc., which would contain information regarding the bank's transactions with its customers. All such information is exempted from disclosure in the absence of finding of larger public interest warranting its disclosure. The Supreme Court has made the following observation in its judgment dated 3.10.2012 in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission and Ors.: - -