Choith Ram Goklani vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 1 September, 2023

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Choith Ram Goklani vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 1 September, 2023

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 10.10.2022 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 12.08.2022 and first appeal dated 11.09.2022:-

(i) "Under section (2) (J) (i) of the RTI Act 2005, provide inspection of all the official key registers maintained by Garavpur branch, in between 01/1/2012 and 31/12/2021 on which complete detail of all the officials of the Branch who were holding the cash keys and loan document almirah keys of Garavpur branch was officially entered.

(ii) Under section (2) (J) (i) of the RTI Act 2005, provide inspection of the particular official document of Garavpur branch / official document of Regional Office Sultanpur, by which in between 11/9/2017 and 05/5/2018 branch manager Garavpur Mr. Hariram EC 5109, first time observed this fact and had officially reported to the officials of Regional Office Sultanpur that as per his observation the loan document Page 1 of 5 number ************552 is physically not available on the record of Garavpur Branch.

(iii) Under section (2) (J) (i) of the RTI Act 2005, provide Inspection of the complete record of all the Adverse Feature reports of Garavpur branch, which was officially prepared in between 01/1/2010 and 30/6/2022 by every incoming Branch Manager of Garavpur branch.

(iv) Under section (2) (J) (i) of the RTI Act 2005, provide Inspection of the official Inspection Report of Garavpur branch, which was prepared by the Inspecting Officer Mr. Ranjeet Singh EC 5106 on the completion of the regular inspection conducted by him in between 01/9/2017 and 11/9/2017.

(v) If any such official document / record as requested on the point number (1) (2) (3) (4) of this RTI application does not exist on the official record of Regional Office Sultanpur / branch office Garavpur provide this Information officially."

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 28.10.2020 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Baroda U.P. Bank Head Office Sultanpur. The CPIO vide letter dated 07.09.2022 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 11.09.2022. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 07.10.2022 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 10.10.2022 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 10.10.2022 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.

Page 2 of 5

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 07.09.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-

"On point no. (i); - Maintenance of key Register is for official use/convenience of the Bank and the same is not meant for the use of applicants. As such, inspection thereof by any applicant is not allowed.

On point no. (ii) & (iii); - As per the section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, a person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall specify the particular of the information sought by him or her. Non-specific queries or clarification or interpretation of rule is outside the purview of the Act. The CPIO is not supposed to create information or interpret information.

On point no. (iv); - The information sought by you in the present RTI Application pertains to the Departmental Enquiry held against you. Kindly note that relevant documents/information desired by you has already been provided the course of enquiry. Further, charge sheeted offices in provided with the copy of Enquiry Report at the conclusion of enquiry and as such request for information by the charge sheeted officer pertaining to discretionary proceeding under the RTI Act is not maintainable.

On point no. (v); - As mentioned in point. (i) to (iv)."

The FAA vide order dated 07.10.2022 agreed with the reply given by the CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Manoj Kumar Jha, Regional Head, Baroda U P Bank, Sultanpur, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had sought inspection of the relevant records relating to the loan document number ************552. However, the same was not provided by the respondent till the date of hearing.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had already provided point-wise reply to the appellant vide letter dated 07.09.2022.

Page 3 of 5

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the appellant had been filing number of RTI applications and insisting upon the information in parallel applications. The appellant had been seeking information in most of the RTI applications that the very basis of the charge sheet was missing of one of the documents in respect of the loan account No. ***********52. The thrust of the application include when, how and in what manner the particular document inflicting the appellant as the document lost could be attributed to him. In most of the reply the respondent had been arguing that the information was provided to the appellant during the departmental enquiry. However, nothing come in the notice of the Commission that those particular documents pointing out missing of loan documents were given to the appellant. The appellant was dealt with departmentally and adverse action was taken against him. Certain gaps in not providing the information could not be ruled out which would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. For the sake of administration of justice and compliance of principles of natural justice, the respondent is directed to facilitate inspection of records relating to the queries raised in the RTI application and provide certified copies of documents selected by him after inspection, within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक/Date: 31.08.2023 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत ) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:

The CPIO Baroda UP Bank, 123, Ishwardas Verma Memorial Complex, Gora Barik, Amahat, Lucknow Road, Sultanpur, UP -228001 First Appellate Authority, Baroda U.P. Bank Buddh Vihar Commercial Scheme, New Shivpuri Colony, Taramandal,Gorakhpur-273016 Shri Choith Ram Goklani, Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission