Choith Ram Goklani vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 14 February, 2023

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Choith Ram Goklani vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 14 February, 2023

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 31.08.2021 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 07.06.2021 and first appeal dated 12.07.2021:-

(i) "Provide duly attested copy of each and every document from the official records of the office of the General Manager of the Bank, which was on record placed before the General Manager and carefully considered by the General Manager Sri G.K Dixit before signing the Charge Sheet Memorandum number HO/12/VIG/CA/OFF/113 dated 27/6/2019 against C.R. Goklani in the matter Page 1 of 5 of reported incident of missing loan document from the record of Garavpur Branch.

(ii) Provide duly attested copy of each and every official document from the records of the Bank by which list of all the privilege documents was declared by the Bank. This was told to him by the presenting officer Sri Nirmal Singh (EC 12368) that privilege documents of the bank are the documents of the Bank which exist on the record of the Bank but cannot be made available to any charge sheeted officer to present his defense before the enquiry.

(iii) Provide duly attested copy of the official rule/official circular of the Bank by which this was instructed by the Bank that copy of the First stage reference copy of the preliminary investigation report inspection report of the Branch copy of the show cause notice are the privilege documents of the Bank and therefore cannot be provided to the CSO.

(iv) Provide duly attested copy of the official letter of Regional Office Sultanpur by which this was officially instructed to the Branch Manager Koiripur Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava on 28/6/2019 to get pasted all the pages of Memorandum number HO/12/VIG/CA/OFF/113 dated 27/6/2019 against C.R. Goklani on the local residence of C.R Goklani at Koiripur and his permanent address at Allahabad.

(v) If any information/official record as requested on the point number (1) (2) (3) of this RTI application does not exist on the official record of the CPIO office Head Office Gorakhpur, provide this information officially."

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 07.06.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Baroda U.P Bank, Gorakhpur, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 07.07.2021 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 12.07.2021. The First Appellate Page 2 of 5 Authority (FAA) vide order dated 11.08.2021 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 31.08.2021 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 31.08.2021 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 07.07.2021 and the same is reproduced as under :-

"(i)The same/similar information was earlier sought by you through RTI online portal vide Registration no. BUPGB/R/E/21/00157 dated 17.05.2021 and BUPGB/R/E/21/00131 dated 14.04.2021 which had already been disposed by the CPIO vide the online portal. As such, we request you, not to misuse the RTI Act by seeking same/similar information again and again.

(ii, iv & v)As per section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, a person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall specify the particulars of the information sought by him or her. Non-specific queries or clarification or interpretation of rules is outside the purview of the Act. The CPIO is not supposed to create information or to interpret information.

As you have not mentioned the details of desired document/official letter i.e. letter no. with date, we are not able to provide you any information in this context.

(iii)The same/similar information related to copy of First stage reference and preliminary investigation report was earlier sought by you through RTI online portal vide Registration no. BUPGB/R/E/21/00156 dated 17.05.2021 and BUPGB/R/E/21/00131 dated 14.04.2021 which had already been disposed by the CPIO vide the online portal. As such, we request you, not to misuse the RTI Act by seeking same/similar information again and again.

Page 3 of 5

Further, regarding the desired information related to copy of inspection report/show cause notice, we would like to inform you that as you have not mentioned the rule/circular number with date, we are not able to provide you any information in this context."

The FAA vide order dated 11.08.2021 agreed with the reply given by the CPIO

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri D. S. Pandey, Chief Manager & CPIO, Baroda U.P. Bank, Gorakhpur, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had sought documents which were considered by the General Manager Sri G.K Dixit before signing the Charge Sheet Memorandum number HO/12/VIG/CA/OFF/113 dated 27/6/2019 against the appellant, and on the basis of which preliminary investigation report was prepared, etc. However, the respondent had not provided the requisite information although it was related to his case.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought by the appellant was non-specific and he had sought clarification with respect to the investigation carried out against him. Therefore, the same could not be provided to the appellant.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the reply given by the respondent was evasive. Perusal of the RTI application revealed that the appellant had sought the documents with specific details and the erstwhile CPIO had turned down the RTI application merely on the ground that the queries were non-specific. It may be noted that the appellant having sought the documents based on which charge sheet or investigation report in his matter was prepared, the respondent should have disclosed the information in the interest of principles of natural justice. Therefore, in the interest of administration of justice, the respondent is directed to facilitate inspection of the files referred to in the RTI application to the appellant on a mutually convenient date to both parties, intimated to the appellant well in advance. The process of inspection may be completed within four Page 4 of 5 weeks from date of receipt of this order and the respondent is directed to file a compliance report before the Commission upon completion of the inspection. With these observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-


                                                                             सुरेश चं ा)
                                                          (Suresh Chandra) (सु        ा
                                                                          सूचना आयु )
                                               Information Commissioner (सू
                                                                दनांक/Date: 13.02.2023
Authenticated true copy

R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)

Addresses of the parties:
THE CPIO :
Baroda UP Bank
Buddh Vihar
Commercial Scheme,
New Shivpuri Colony,
Taramandal,Gorakhpur-273016

THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY
Baroda UP Bank
Buddh Vihar
Commercial Scheme,
New Shivpuri Colony,
Taramandal,Gorakhpur-273016

SH. CHOITH RAM GOKLANI




                                                                               Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission