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 notings are barred from disclosure u/s. 8(1)(e) also has to be rejected on the same ground. If the file notings are held to be maintained by UPSC in a fiduciary relationship, then the very purpose of RTI Act would be defeated in as much as all sundry notings by all Departments of the Government would be attempted to be covered under this clause. This does not seem to be in conformity with the legislative intent. Disclosure is the rule and non-disclosure an exemption, as held by the Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh case. Information can be denied only under a specific provision of the Act. The provisions invoked by UPSC in denying information to the appellant, however, cannot be upheld in the facts and circumstances of the case.... Para 21. In sum, we are of the considered opinion that the file notings relating to the matter in hand are disclosable to the appellant. Even so, we give liberty to the UPSC to obliterate the names and designations of the officers of UPSC who made notings in the file(s) u/s. 10(1) of the RTI Act. We hope that on the supply of file notings, the queries raised by the appellant in the RTI application would stand answered.
4.1 The respondents stated that the DFS vide order No. 1/10/2012/Vig (Part-I) dated 22.09.2014 terminated the term of the office of Shri Sudhir Kumar Jain as CMD, Syndicate Bank with immediate effect and with the direction that grant of three months' salary and allowances in lieu of the notice may be considered only if he is exonerated in exercise of powers conferred by sub-clause (1A) of Clause 8 of the Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme 1970/80. They stated that sub-clause (1A) of Clause 8 of the Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme 1970/80 stipulates "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-clause (1), the Central Government shall have the right to terminate the term of office of a whole-time director, including the Managing Director, at any time before the expiry of the term specified under that sub-clause by giving to him a notice of not less than three months, in writing or three months salary and allowances in lieu of notice; and the whole time Director, including the MD, shall also have the right to relinquish his office at any time before the expiry of the term specified under that sub-clause by giving to the Central Government notice of not less than three months in writing. They stated that the appellant had moved before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 456/2015 against his termination order. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide is judgment dated 16.01.2015 held "Since the language of the order dated 8.7.2013, makes it clear that the appointment is for a period of five years or till further orders, the appointment is for a term, and the term being a specific term, clearly therefore the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Shetty (supra) will squarely apply, and consequently, the maximum entitlement of the petitioner will be to claim three months' notice pay and not seek quashing of the impugned order dated 22.9.2014 whereby services of the petitioner as a Chairman & Managing Director have been terminated." The respondents also relied upon the full bench decision of the Commission dated 26.08.2011 in the matter of Durgesh Kumari Vs. Income Tax Department in case No. CIC/LS/A/2010/000685 in which the Commission held, "To sum up, we hold that the present matter is still under 'prosecution' and the disclosure of requested information would impede the process of prosecution in terms of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. Hence, in our opinion, the decision of CPIO and FAA do not call for any interference. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed." Further, the respondents vide letter No. 25/1/2015/RTI/Vig dated 19.02.2016 confirmed from the CBI regarding the cases pending against the appellant. It has been informed by the CBI that out of two cases against Shri Sudhir Kumar Jain, one case is under investigation while the other is under trial.
5. The Commission observes that there is merit in the contention put-forth by the appellant that he had sought the procedure followed by the Ministry of Finance for suspension and termination of his services and had not asked for any details with respect to the ongoing case by the CBI. The respondents have not been able to justify as to how providing copies of the note sheet relating to suspension and termination order will impede the ongoing CBI enquiries and prosecution. The Commission holds that providing the copies of file notings relating to suspension and termination of the appellant as CMD, Syndicate Bank, does not affect the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders as claimed by the respondents. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO to provide file notings relating to the suspension and termination of the appellant after severing any third party information and names of officials who dealt with the case as per Section 10 of the RTI Act, 2005, without disclosing the background papers, within two weeks of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.