RTI Commission Orders People’s Bank To Release Information

By Rusiripala Tennakoon –DECEMBER 20, 2020

Rusiripala Tennakoon

People’s bank has been ordered to provide the information sought by an Appellant which they rejected earlier after a long drawn RTIC Appeal (In- Person hearing) inquiry held under section 32(1) of the Right to Information Act No.`12 of 2016. The details of the order adopted by the Commission in two stages is given below.

The Appellant an ex-employee of the Bank, by information request dated 19.06.2018 requested for the following items of information;

1. Total expenditure incurred from 2015 to the end of June 2018 for and in connection with Banks Digitalization(IT) project with a breakup for hardware, software system installation & testing, consultants fees, reimbursement, part payments in advance made during this period.

2. The particulars of salaries, wages, ex-gratia payments, bonus (including performance bonus) expenditure incurred by the bank for overseas trips and details of all other perks provided by the bank – Vehicle allowance, special allowance, entertainment expenses, travelling grants incurred by the bank on account of contract employees from 200 to 2018 June with details of positions held by each Contract Employee during the period including the particulars of any change in position held by each Contract Employee during the period including the particulars of any changes in positions, grades or level of employment in respect of each employee separately.

Information Officer of the bank rejected the release of information under section 5(1)(a), (d) and (f) of the RTI Act. Dissatisfied with this response the Appellant lodged an appeal with the Designated Officer of the Bank on 13.07.2018. The DO reaffirming the decision of the IO responded on 17.07.2018 rejecting the provision of information sought by the Appellant. The Appellant thereafter preferred an appeal to the RTI Commission on 05.10.2018.

When the Commission took up item no.1 for hearing, Bank submitted that the requested information is commercially vital for the continuation of the ongoing Digitalization process and it is bound by contract to a third party. Bank submitted further that there is no larger public interest in the information requested. The Appellant countered both these positions. RTIC directed both parties to tender written submissions more fully substantiating their positions and directed the bank to submit to the perusal of the RTIC, contract details with regard to the Digitalization Project. The In- Person hearing commenced.

After a long and protracted process of arguments for and against, the RTIC made the first ORDER on 02.07.2019.

Where item 1) of this information request is concerned, the Appellant has requested the Total expenditure in the installation and testing of software and hardware as per each category listed therein. On the facts as presented before us, the provision of this information does not appear to be precluded by any of the exemptions contained in Section 5(1) of the RTI Act. In fact, the public interest in disclosing this information is demonstrably high as the matter involves the expenditure of public funds.

The PA (bank) is directed to revert on the total expenditure in relation to the Digitalization of the PA by breakdown as per each category as requested by the Appellant on the next date on which this Commission’s ruling on item2) of the said information request will also be considered in the wake of the submissions made by both parties.

On the next date, (21.01.2020) of the Appeal {In-Person Hearing}, the PA(Bank) submitted that in relation to the other request, now the information is known, subsequent to the proceedings of the Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE). The Appellant disagreed with this contention and stated that the information released before the COPE was limited to certain specific financial irregularities only and does not encompass the information request. And the Appellant further submitted that he is in receipt of the records and reports of the COPE proceedings and he would furnish those before the commission. RTIC ordered both parties to clarify whether the specific information in relation to the request has been released before the COPE. Appellant was directed to submit a copy of the COPE proceedings for the perusal of the Commission.

While the appeal hearing was proceeding the PA(Bank) tendered to the RTIC a summary prepared by the A.G.M. Banking Support and Administration dated 06.08.2019, of the payments made and balance payments to be made in respect of the Digital banking project to two companies, for the perusal of the Commission.

The appellant accepted that this information satisfies the information requested by him in item 1 of the information request.

Read More