Allowed¶13

Idbi Bank Limited v. Kumudini Rajesh Khadatare

Bombay HC8 Apr 2025WP/96/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RTI Act Section 8 exemption; Central Information Commission second appeal; disclosure of disciplinary inquiry records; staff accountability committee deliberations; fiduciary capacity; personal information of employees; loan sanction confidentiality; vexatious/vexatious-litigant allegation; whistle blower claim; delay and laches; writ maintainability; extraordinary relief Writ Court; belated applicant; CIC orders set aside; IDBI Bank; Bombay High Court writ petition; promotional prospects assurance; no public interest in disclosure.

What did the court decide?

Petitions allowed and rule made absolute; all four impugned CIC second-appeal orders directing disclosure set aside; court accepted the bank's assurance that the disciplinary inquiry outcomes shall not adversely affect Respondent No.1's promotional prospects if she is otherwise eligible.

Idbi Bank Limited vs Kumudini Rajesh Khadatare — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the CIC's orders directing IDBI Bank to disclose to Respondent No.1 the requested records (staff accountability reports, internal guidelines/circulars, loan-sanction information of other officers, personal information of employees, third-party transaction details claimed exempt under Section 8 RTI Act) should stand — i.e., whether any public interest is served by such disclosure. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

On perusal of the facts and the documents produced by the Petitioner, there is no public interest that will be served by providing the documents to Respondent No.1 as sought; the court sees no reason to provide the documents at this delayed stage.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The sought documents are confidential bank documents with no bearing on the disciplinary inquiries, which culminated in 2012-13; a decade having elapsed, no purpose would be served by providing them.

¶11

Key takeaways

The present Petition is not maintainable on the ground of delay and laches itself.ratio¶11
Applying settled law: an applicant who approaches the Court belatedly, sleeps over his rights for a considerable period and wakes from deep slumber, ought not be granted extraordinary relief by the Writ Court.ratio¶11
Accordingly, the CIC order dated 5 April 2023 in Second Appeal No.CIC/IDBIL/A/2021/653122 and the CIC orders dated 20 July 2023 in Second Appeal Nos. CIC/IDBIL/A/2022/654866, CIC/IDBIL/A/2022/609468 and CIC/IDBIL/A/2022/609361 are set aside.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Division Bench of Revati Mohite Dere & Dr. Neela Gokhale, JJ. (judgment per Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.), pronounced 8 April 2025 — Writ Petition No.2656 of 2023 with W.P. Nos. 96, 2387 and 139 of 2024. IDBI Bank Ltd. challenged four identical orders of the Central Information Commission in second appeals (dated 5 April 2023 in CIC/IDBIL/A/2021/653122 and dated 20 July 2023 in CIC/IDBIL/A/2022/654866, CIC/IDBIL/A/2022/609468 and CIC/IDBIL/A/2022/609361) directing the bank to disclose, to its employee (Respondent No.1), records she had sought under the RTI Act — staff accountability reports, internal guidelines/circulars, information on sanction of loans and advances to borrowers, and personal information of other employees, claimed by the bank to be exempt under Section 8 of the RTI Act and held in fiduciary capacity. After perusing the records produced in court, the Bench held there was no public interest in disclosure: the disciplinary inquiries had culminated in 2012-13 (one exoneration, two minor penalties), Respondent No.1 had complied with the penalties and had never challenged the inquiry orders in any court; the documents were confidential bank documents with no bearing on the concluded inquiries. The petitions were further held not maintainable on delay and laches, applying the settled principle that a belated applicant who sleeps over his rights ought not be granted extraordinary relief by the Writ Court. All four CIC orders were set aside; petitions allowed, rule made absolute. The court accepted the bank's statement that the inquiry outcomes would not adversely affect Respondent No.1's promotional prospects if otherwise eligible. No precedents were cited.

¶1

2025:BHC-OS:6039-DB

¶2

901-wp-2656-2023-J.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2656 OF 2023 WITH

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.96 OF 2024 WITH

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2387 OF 2024

¶6

WITH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.139 OF 2024

¶8

IDBI Bank Limited, A Company incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and A banking company within the meaning of Section 5(c) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, Having its registered office at IDBI Tower, Cuff Parade, WTC Complex, Mumbai – 400 005. …..Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Kumudini Rajesh Khadatare Occupation : Service, Indian inhabitant, Aged 54 years, Residing at 62, Kalpataru Height, Near Agripada Police Station, Opposite Nair Hospital, Sat Rasta, Mumbai Central, Mumbai 400 011.

¶11

The Central Information Commission, Being an Authority established under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005,

¶12

1/8

¶13

Gaikwad RD

¶14

901-wp-2656-2023-J.doc

¶15

Having its office at Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi – 110 067. …..Respondents

¶16

Mr. Vishal Talsania, i/b. Mr. V. M. Parkar, for the Petitioner in all Petitions.

¶17

Mr. Vaibhav Jagdale, for the Respondent No.1 in all Petitions.

¶18

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. RESERVED ON : 3^rd APRIL 2025. PRONOUNCED ON : 8^th APRIL 2025.

¶19

JUDGMENT :- (Per Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.)

¶20

Rule . Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent

¶21

of parties, the Petitions are being taken up for final hearing.

¶22

In Writ Petition No.2656 of 2023, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 5^th April 2023 passed by the Respondent No.2-Central Information Commission (‘CIC') in Second Appeal No.CIC/IDBIL/A/2021/653122. In the other Writ Petition Nos. 87 of

¶23

2024, 96 of 2024 and 2387 of 2024, the Petitioner assails orders dated 20^th July 2023 passed by the CIC in Second Appeal Nos. CIC/IDBIL/A/2022/654866, CIC/IDBIL/A/2022/609468; CIC/IDBIL/ A/2022/609361 respectively. All the impugned orders are identical in nature and hence, being disposed off by this common judgment and order.

¶24

2/8

¶25

Gaikwad RD

¶26

901-wp-2656-2023-J.doc

¶27

The Petitioner is the IDBI Bank Ltd. and the Respondent No.1 is its employee. The Respondent No.2 is the CIC.

¶28

It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent No.1 made an Application seeking certain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘RTI Act’) to the Public Information Officer, pertaining to a Disciplinary Inquiry conducted against her by the bank. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent No.1 is a vexatious litigant inasmuch as, she made over 30 Applications under the RTI Act ostensibly in reprisal of Departmental Inquiries and the penalties imposed on her pursuant to the said inquiries.

¶29

According to the Petitioner, the information sought by the Respondent No.1 related to certain staff accountability reports and connected documents as well as details of commercial transactions of the Petitioner Bank with third parties, which information is exempted under Section 8 of the RTI Act. The Chief Public Information Officer (‘CPIO’) rejected her Application holding that the information sought was inter alia held in fiduciary capacity and personal information of other bank officials. The Respondent No.1 assailed this order before the Appellate Authority under the RTI Act, which also confirmed the

¶30

3/8

¶31

Gaikwad RD

¶32

901-wp-2656-2023-J.doc

¶33

order of the CPIO. She, thus, challenged the Appellate order before the CIC contending that she was in fact a whistle blower and was wrongly penalized by the Petitioner. She said that she required the documents in order to prove her innocence.

¶34

The Petitioner appeared before the CIC and contended that the documents sought contained various internal guidelines, circulars and sensitive and confidential information of other officers concerning the sanction of loans and advances to borrowers of the bank. The documents sought also contained personal information of other employees of the bank, which the Petitioner was not liable to provide. However, by the orders impugned dated 5^th April 2023 and 20^th July 2023 in the respective Petitions, the CIC directed the Petitioner to provide the said information. These are the orders that are assailed in the present Petitions.

¶35

Mr. Vishal Talsania, learned counsel appears for the Petitioner in all the Petitions and Mr. Vaibhav Jagdale, appears for the Respondent No.1.

¶36

By order dated 6^th March 2025, we granted time to the

¶37

4/8

¶38

Gaikwad RD

¶39

901-wp-2656-2023-J.doc

¶40

Petitioner to produce the records of documents sought by the Respondent No.1 for our perusal. Today, Mr. Talsania, produced the said documents in Court. We perused the said documents. The documents contained circulars and policy documents relating to deliberation of the Staff Accountability Committee constituted by the bank. The documents also related to sensitive and confidential information and compliance by other officers of the bank pertaining to the sanction of loans and advances to the borrowers of the bank. There was also personal information about other employees of the bank.

¶41

Mr. Talsania brought to our notice that the Disciplinary Inquiries against the Petitioner were conducted in the year 2012 and by order dated 20^th August 2012, the Respondent No.1 was exonerated in one inquiry. By order dated 30^th September 2013, she was found guilty of negligence in another inquiry. However, instead of inflicting a major penalty as was initially proposed, only a minor penalty was imposed upon her towards part of pecuniary loss caused to the bank on account of her negligence. By order dated 21^st December 2013, the Respondent No.1 was found guilty of certain

¶42

5/8

¶43

Gaikwad RD

¶44

901-wp-2656-2023-J.doc

¶45

lapses in the third inquiry and was awarded minor penalty of reduction by one stage in the timescale of pay for a period of one year without cumulative effect. Mr Talsania submits that the Respondent No.1 has suffered the penalties imposed upon her and has not challenged the orders in any Court of law till date. It is his further say that since a decade has gone by since the aforesaid orders were passed and implemented, no purpose will be served by providing the said documents to her.

¶46

Mr. Jagdale on the other hand, submits that the Respondent No.1 has a right to know as to why the Disciplinary Inquiries were initiated against her. He thus defended the impugned orders.

¶47

Having heard rival contentions raised and on perusal of the facts in the matter as well as the documents in question, produced by the Petitioner, we are of the considered view that there is no public interest that will be served by providing the documents to the Respondent No.1 as sought by her. In fact, the reason given by her while seeking the documents is to prove her innocence in the Disciplinary Inquiries. However, it is clear from the record that the

¶48

6/8

¶49

Gaikwad RD

¶50

901-wp-2656-2023-J.doc

¶51

inquiries have concluded in the year 2012-13 itself; the Respondent No.1 has complied with the penalties imposed; and she has not challenged the orders in any Court of law till date. This being the position, we see no reason to provide the documents to the Respondent No.1 at this delayed stage. In fact, the present Petition is not maintainable on the ground of delay and laches itself. It is settled law that an Applicant who approaches the Court belatedly and sleep over his rights for a considerable period of time, but wakes up from his deep slumber, ought not be granted extraordinary relief by Writ Court. In any case, a decade has gone by from the conclusion of the Disciplinary Inquiries and no purpose will be served by providing the documents to her, which are in any case confidential documents of the bank. The said documents have no bearing on the Disciplinary Inquiries culminated in 2012-13 itself. Thus, we have no hesitation in setting aside the order dated 5^th April 2023 passed by the Respondent No.2-Central Information Commission (‘CIC') in Second Appeal No.CIC/IDBIL/A/2021/653122 and orders dated 20^th July 2023 passed by the CIC in Second Appeal Nos.CIC/IDBIL/A/2022/654866, CIC/IDBIL/A/ 2022/609468; CIC/IDBIL/A/2022/609361 respectively. Accordingly, they are set aside.

¶52

7/8

¶53

Gaikwad RD

¶54

901-wp-2656-2023-J.doc

¶55

At this stage, Mr. Jagdale prays that the findings of the inquiries shall not bear any adverse consequences on the promotional prospects of the Respondent No.1. Mr. Talsania, on instructions, states that the outcome of the Disciplinary Inquiries shall not adversely affect the promotional prospects of the Respondent No.1 in the bank, if she is otherwise eligible. We accept the said statement.

¶56

The Petitions are allowed. Rule is accordingly made

¶57

absolute.

¶58

All parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶59

(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

¶60

8/8

¶61

Gaikwad RD Signed by: Raju D. Gaikwad Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 08/04/2025 15:39:13

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Identical orders of the Central Information Commission allowing Respondent No.1's second appeals and directing the Petitioner to provide the information sought: order dated 5 April 2023 in Second Appeal No.CIC/IDBIL/A/2021/653122 (challenged in W.P. No.2656 of 2023) and orders dated 20 July 2023 in Second Appeal Nos. CIC/IDBIL/A/2022/654866, CIC/IDBIL/A/2022/609468 and CIC/IDBIL/A/2022/609361 (challenged in the 2024 writ petitions).¶2
Central Information Commission · 5 April 2023; 20 July 2023
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.1, an employee of the Petitioner bank, applied under the RTI Act to the Public Information Officer seeking information pertaining to a disciplinary inquiry conducted against her.¶4
Prior proceeding
Petitioner alleges Respondent No.1 is a vexatious litigant who made over 30 RTI applications ostensibly in reprisal of departmental inquiries and penalties imposed on her.¶4
Prior proceeding
The Chief Public Information Officer rejected the application, holding the information was inter alia held in fiduciary capacity and personal information of other bank officials.¶5
Prior proceeding
The first appellate authority under the RTI Act confirmed the CPIO's order.¶5
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.1 carried the matter to the CIC in second appeal, contending she was a whistle blower wrongly penalized and needed the documents to prove her innocence.¶5
Prior proceeding
Before the CIC, the Petitioner objected that the documents contained internal guidelines, circulars, confidential information of other officers regarding loan sanctions, and personal information of other employees.¶6
Prior proceeding
On 6 March 2025 the court granted time to produce the records; the documents produced in court included circulars and policy documents of the Staff Accountability Committee, sensitive/confidential loan-sanction compliance information of other officers, and personal information of bank employees.¶8
Prior proceeding
Disciplinary inquiries of 2012-13: Respondent No.1 exonerated in one inquiry by order dated 20 August 2012; found guilty of negligence by order dated 30 September 2013 with only a minor penalty towards pecuniary loss; found guilty of lapses by order dated 21 December 2013 with minor penalty of reduction by one stage in timescale of pay for one year without cumulative effect.¶9
Prior proceeding
Per Petitioner's counsel, Respondent No.1 has suffered/implemented the penalties and has not challenged the inquiry orders in any court till date.¶9

Idbi Bank Limited v. Kumudini Rajesh Khadatare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idbi Bank Limited v. Kumudini Rajesh Khadatare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parekh Industries Limited vs The Reserve Bank of India

Vikrant Dattatray Deshmukh vs State of Maharashtra

Rajat Jhunjhunwala vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bhawna Mishra vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary Department of Women and Child Development

Pratush Mukesh Jain through His Natural Guardian Father Mukesh Jayntilal Jain vs Inion of India through the Ministry of External Affairs Office

Namrata Ajay Shah vs State of Maharashtra through Additional Collector Bandra and Anr.