Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Kailash Chandra Panda vs State Bank Of India on 7 December, 2022

Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta

Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta

                            के    ीय सूचना आयोग
                     Central Information Commission
                        बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                      Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                      नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067

ि तीय अपील सं या/Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2021/120518

Mr. Kailash Chandra Panda                          ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                    VERSUS
                                    बनाम

CPIO                                               ... ितवादी/Respondent
State Bank of India
Regional Office, Brahma Nagar
2nd Floor, Berhampur, Ganjam
Odisha-760001

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-

RTI : 24-02-2021             FA     : 20-03-2021       SA      : 05-07-2021

CPIO : Not on Record         FAO : Not on Record       Hearing : 05-12-2022

                                   ORDER

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) State Bank of India, Odisha. The appellant seeking information is as under:-

2. No reply of CPIO is placed on record. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has file first appeal dated 20-03-2021 and requested that the Page 1 of 3 information should be provided to him. No reply of FAA is placed on record. He has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to him and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.

Hearing:

3. The appellant did not attend the hearing despite beings served the hearing notice. The respondent, Ms. Jyotsana, CPIO. Regional Manager attended the hearing through video conferencing.

4. Both the parties submitted their written submission and the same has been taken on record.

5. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 22.11.2022, they have informed the appellant that the information sought pertains to Aska Branch which fall under the administrative control of SBI, RBO-VI, Aska. She further submitted that an online reply had already been provided by the then CPIO on 20.03.2021. She also submitted that later in compliance of FAA's direction, copy of relevant document had also been provided to the appellant.

Decision:

6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought information pertaining to fraudulent transactions made from SBI Aska, Main Branch and other queries related thereto. It has been observed that an online reply dated 20.03.2021 had been provided by the then CPIO. Later, at the stage of first appeal, the FAA had directed the CPIO to furnish the Payment Gateway of the given transactions and action taken report w.r.t letter dated 19.12.2020 of Smt. Urmila Panda to the appellant. In compliance of the above said directions, the CPIO collected all the papers and after collecting and collating all the information from various sources including the office of LHO, the respondent vide their letter no. RBO VI/22-23/1065 dated 25.11.2022 provided all available information to the appellant.
7. It has been informed that as far as action taken report w.r.t the letter of Smt. Urmila Panda is concerned, the same was not belonging to the present respondent office. Nonetheless the same was transferred to the office of CPIO, The IIC, Town Police Station, Aska, Ganjam vide their letter no. RBO VI/22-

23/1066 dated 25.11.2022. It has further been informed that the delay in Page 2 of 3 complying with the direction of FAO caused due to the change of the office of the CPIO and the answering respondent has apologized for the same.

8. In view of the above, the Commission comes to the conclusion that factual position as per records had already been provided to the appellant vide their letters dated 20.03.2021 and 25.11.2022 and the same is being upheld by the Commission.

9. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.

10. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज कु मार गु ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date : 05-12-2022 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा), Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682) Addresses of the parties:

1. CPIO State Bank of India Regional Office, Brahma Nagar 2nd Floor, Berhampur, Ganjam Odisha-760001
2. Mr. Kailash Chandra Panda Page 3 of 3