CANARA BANK REP. BY ITS DEPUTY GEN. MANAGERversusC.S. SHYAM & ANR.

                         [2017) 7 S.C.R. 741



    CANARA BANK REP. BY ITS DEPUTY GEN. MANAGER                           A
                                  v.
                        C.S. SHYAM & ANR.
                    (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009)
                          AUGUST 31, 2017                                 B

    [R.K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.I
        Right to Information Act, 2005 - ss. 80) and 6 - Exemption
·from disclosure of information .- Application u/s. 6 by employee to
  the Public Information Officer of the Bank seeking in.formation C
 regarding trans.fer and posting of the entire clerical staff - Rejected
  by Public Jn.formation Officer and Chi(ff Public Information Officer
 whereas allowed by the Central Information Commission and the
 High Court - On appeal, held: Information sought by employee, of
  individual employees working in the Bank was personal in nature,
  it was exempted from being disclosed u/s. 80) and neither any larger D
 public interest is involved - Application rightly rejected by Public
 Information Officer and Chief Public Information Officer whereas
  wrongly allowed by the Central Information Commission and the
 High Court - Thus, order passed by the High Court and Central
 Information Commission set aside.
                                                                          E
       Allowing the appeal, the Court
         HELD: The information sought by respondent No.I-Bank
  employee, of individual employees working in the Bank regarding
· their transfer and posting of the entire clerical staff, was personal
  in nature; it was exempted from being disclosed under Section           F
  S(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and neither respondent
· No.I 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      G
  No.I. In view thereof the application made by respondent No.I
  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
                                                                          H
                                   741
742              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         (2017] 7 S.C.R.


A     Central Information Commission and the High Court. Thus, the
      order of the High Court and Central Information Commission is
      set aside and the orders passed by Public Information Officer
      and the Chief Public Information Officer are restored. [Paras
      14-16) [745-C-GJ
B             ,Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central In.formation
               Commissioner & Ors. (2013) 1 SCC 212: [ 2012) 8
               SCR 1097; R.K. Jain v. Union of India & Am: (2013)
               14 SCC 794: [2013] 5 SCR 411 - relied on.
                             Case Law Reference
c             [2012) 8 SCR1097            relied on            Para 14
              [2013) 5 SCR 411            relied on            Para 14


              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.22 of
 D    2009.
            From the final Judgment and Order dated 20.09.2007 passed by
      the Division Bench of the High Court ofKerala in Writ Appeal No.2100
      of2007.
              Naveen R. Nath, Adv. for the Appellant.
 E
              R.C. Kaushik, Adv. for the Respondent.
              The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This appeal is filed against
      the final judgment and order dated 20.09 .2007 passed by the High Court
 F    of Kerala at Emakulam in Writ Appeal No. 2100 of2007 whereby the
      High Court disposed of the writ appeal filed by the appellant herein and
      upheld the judgment passed by the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition
      filed by the appellant herein challenging the order of the Central
      Information Commission holding that the appellant must provide the
 G    information sought by respondent No.I 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.


 H
  CANARA BANK REP. BY ITS DY. GEN. MANAGER v. C.S.                            743
   SHYAM & ANOTHER [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

      3. The appellant herein is a nationalized Bank. It has a branch in      A
District Malappuram in the State of Kerala. Respondent No. I, 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          B
entire clerical staff from 01.01.2002 to 31.07 .2006 in all the branches of
the appellant-Bank.
      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       C
personal details ofindividuaI 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          D
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. I, felt aggrieved, filed appeal before the Chief      E
Public Information Officer. By order dated 30.09.2006, the ChiefPublic
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. I can-ied the matter in further     F
appeal before the Central Infornrntion 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. I
in his application.
       9. Against the said order, the appellant-Bank filed writ petition <J
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.


                                                                              H
744            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 7 S.C.R.


A           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
B     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
 C    Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union
      of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794, 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
 D    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
 E    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
 F           personal information as defined in clause G) of Section 8(1)
             of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer iil
             an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee
             and the employer and normally those aspects are governed
             by the service rules which fall under the expression
 G           "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
 H
    CANARA BANK REP. BY ITS DY. GEN. MANAGER v. C.S.                              745
     SHYAM & ANOTHER [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

         is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the               A
         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                  B
         from disclosure under cla'use G) 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."
                                                                                  c
           14. In our considered opinion, the aforementioned principle oflaw
   applies to the facts of this case on all force. It is for the reasons that,
· firstly, the information sought by respondent No. l of individual employees
   working in the Bank was personal in nature; secondly, it was exempted
   from being disclosed under Section 8U) of the Act and lastly, neither
   respondent No. l disclosed any public interest much less larger public         D
   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. l.
        15. It is for these reasons, we are of the considered view that the       E
 application made by respondent No. l 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.              ·
                                                                                  F
        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 passed by the Public Information Officer and the Chief Public
 Information Officer. As a result, the application submitted by respondent
 No.I to the appellant-Bank dated 01.08.2006 (Annexure-P-1) stands
                                                                                  G
 rejected.


· Nidhi Jain                                                    Appeal allowed.