Central Information Commission
Mr.N N Puri vs Canara Bank on 5 February, 2013
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CLUB BUILDING (NEAR POST OFFICE)
OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI110 067
TEL: 01126179548
Decision No.CIC/SM/A/2011/001774/VS/02023
Appeal No.CIC/SM/A/2011/001774/VS
Dated: 5.2.2013
Appellant: Shri N.N. Puri,
R/o H.No.603, Sector 9,
Panchkula 134 113.
Respondent: Public Information Officer,
Canara Bank,
Customer Service Section,
Circle Office Delhi,
7th Floor, Ansal Tower,
38, Nehru Place, New Delhi 110 019.
Date of Hearing: 5.2.2013
ORDER
RTI application:
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 09.11.2010 seeking information in respect of Shri Satish Kumar Kapil.
2. The PIO responded on 21.02.2011. The appellant filed a first appeal on 13.04.2011 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 19.4.2011 and forwarded the appellant's appeal to the Circle Office. The appellant filed a second appeal on 08.07.2011 with the Commission.
Hearing:
3. The appellant participated in the hearing through video conferencing. The respondent was personally present in the hearing.
4. The appellant referred to his RTI application and stated that he wanted information as sought in the RTI application on account of the fact that the employees of the bank had used the House Rent Allowance (HRA) benefit to benefit themselves. The appellant stated that the employees for whom the information had been sought lived in his parent's house but had claimed HRA illegally. The appellant said that the information that he was seeking would prove his point and this is why he had sought details about the HRA and the Form 16.
5. The respondent stated that whatever information was available with them that has been provided and the information that is being sought is such that is not available with them.
The respondent further stated that in any case the HRA is part of the emoluments that an official of the rank of a clerk would have got irrespective of where he is staying.
6. The appellant stated that if he has the attendance sheet of the same year of which he is seeking the HRA, then it is wrong for the bank to say that the HRA details are destroyed. The appellant said that the attendance sheet he had was for the year 1994 and that the bank would surely have the HRA details of the employee of that period.
7.The respondent stated that it is by chance that the attendance sheet is available but reiterated that the HRA details of that period would not be available.
8. The appellant stated that if the record has been destroyed, the appellant would have information pertaining to the record of destruction. The respondent stated that they do not have sufficient information to comment on this aspect.
Decision:
9. The respondent is directed to provide to the appellant whatever information is available. Compliance must be done within 30 days of the issuance of the order.
The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer