Canara Bank vs C.S. Shyam .

Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy Gen. Manager ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

C.S. Shyam & Anr. …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) This appeal is filed against the final judgment

and order dated 20.09.2007 passed by the High

Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No.

2100 of 2007 whereby the High Court disposed of

the writ appeal filed by the appellant herein and

upheld the judgment passed by the Single Judge

Signature Not Verified dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2017.08.31 16:58:31 IST Reason: 1 herein challenging the order of the Central

Information Commission holding that the appellant

must provide the information sought by respondent

No.1 herein under the Right to Information Act,

2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2) Few relevant facts need mention to appreciate

the controversy involved in appeal.

3) The appellant herein is a nationalized Bank. It

has a branch in District Malappuram in the State of

Kerala. Respondent No. 1, at the relevant time, was

working in the said Branch as a clerical staff.

4) On 01.08.2006, respondent No.1 submitted an

application to the Public Information Officer of the

appellant-Bank under Section 6 of the Act and

sought information regarding transfer and posting

of the entire clerical staff from 01.01.2002 to

31.07.2006 in all the branches of the

appellant-Bank.

2

5) The information was sought on 15 parameters

with regard to various aspects of transfers of clerical

staff and staff of the Bank with regard to individual

employees. This information was in relation to the

personal details of individual employee such as the

date of his/her joining, designation, details of

promotion earned, date of his/her joining to the

Branch where he/she is posted, the authorities who

issued the transfer orders etc. etc.

6) On 29.08.2006, the Public Information Officer

of the Bank expressed his inability to furnish the

details sought by respondent No. 1 as, in his view,

firstly, the information sought was protected from

being disclosed under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act and

secondly, it had no nexus with any public interest

or activity.

7) Respondent No.1, felt aggrieved, filed appeal

before the Chief Public Information Officer. By

3 order dated 30.09.2006, the Chief Public

Information Officer agreeing with the view taken by

the Public Information Officer dismissed the appeal

and affirmed the order of the Public Information

Officer.

8) Felt aggrieved, respondent No.1 carried the

matter in further appeal before the Central

Information Commission. By order dated

26.02.2007, the appeal was allowed and accordingly

directions were issued to the Bank to furnish the

information sought by respondent No.1 in his

application.

9) Against the said order, the appellant-Bank

filed writ petition before the High Court. The Single

Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition

filed by the appellant-Bank. Challenging the said

order, the appellant-Bank filed writ appeal before

the High Court.

4

10) By impugned order, the Division Bench of the

High Court dismissed the appellant's writ appeal

and affirmed the order of the Central Information

Commission, which has given rise to filing of this

appeal.

11) Having heard the learned counsel for the

appellant and on perusal of the record of the case,

we are inclined to allow the appeal, set aside the

impugned order and dismiss the application

submitted by the 1st respondent under Section 6 of

the Act.

12) In our considered opinion, the issue involved

herein remains no more res integra and stands

settled by two decisions of this Court in Girish

Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information

Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K.

Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794,

5 it may not be necessary to re-examine any legal

issue urged in this appeal.

13) In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande's case

(supra), the petitioner therein (Girish) had sought

some personal information of one employee working

in Sub Regional Office (provident fund) Akola. All

the authorities, exercising their respective powers

under the Act, declined the prayer for furnishing the

information sought by the petitioner. The High

Court in writ petition filed by the petitioner upheld

the orders. Aggrieved by all the order, he filed

special leave to appeal in this Court. Their

Lordships dismissed the appeal and upholding the

orders passed by the High Court held as under:-

“12. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show-cause notices and orders of censure/punishment, etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organisation is primarily a matter

6 between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression “personal information”, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.

13. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are “personal information” which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.”

14) In our considered opinion, the aforementioned

principle of law applies to the facts of this case on

all force. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the

information sought by respondent No.1 of individual

employees working in the Bank was personal in

nature; secondly, it was exempted from being

7 disclosed under Section 8(j) of the Act and lastly,

neither respondent No.1 disclosed any public

interest much less larger public interest involved in

seeking such information of the individual employee

and nor any finding was recorded by the Central

Information Commission and the High Court as to

the involvement of any larger public interest in

supplying such information to respondent No.1.

15) It is for these reasons, we are of the considered

view that the application made by respondent No.1

under Section 6 of the Act was wholly misconceived

and was, therefore, rightly rejected by the Public

Information Officer and Chief Public Information

Officer whereas wrongly allowed by the Central

Information Commission and the High Court.

16) In this view of the matter, we allow the appeal,

set aside the order of the High Court and Central

Information Commission and restore the orders

8 passed by the Public Information Officer and the

Chief Public Information Officer. As a result, the

application submitted by respondent No.1 to the

appellant-Bank dated 01.08.2006 (Annexure-P-1)

stands rejected.

………...................................J. [R.K. AGRAWAL]

…...……..................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi;

August 31, 2017

9