Central Information Commission
Smt. Binni Dwivedi vs United Commercial Bank (Uco) on 23 August, 2024
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 Nos. (As per Annexure)
Binni Dwivedi ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: UCO Bank,
Kolkata And Jodhpur ... ितवादीगण/Respondent(s)
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal(s):
Sl. No. Second Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of
Appeal RTI CPIO's First FAA's Second
No. Application Reply Appeal Order Appeal
1. 619627 17.10.2022 16.11.2022 09.12.2022 24.01.2023 Nil
2. 619625 26.10.2022 25.11.2022 23.12.2022 10.01.2023 Nil
3. 619621 16.10.2022 15.11.2022 08.12.2022 24.01.2023 Nil
4. 619619 16.12.2022 16.01.2023 16.01.2023 25.01.2023 Nil
5. 619617 16.12.2022 16.01.2023 16.01.2023 25.01.2023 Nil
6. 619615 16.12.2022 16.01.2023 16.01.2023 25.01.2023 Nil
7. 613866 16.10.2022 14.11.2022 15.11.2022 23.12.2022 Nil
8. 613863 16.10.2022 14.11.2022 15.11.2022 23.12.2022 Nil
9. 613858 16.10.2022 14.11.2022 15.11.2022 23.12.2022 Nil
10. 607981 11.10.2022 10.11.2022 Nil 12.12.2022 Nil
11. 613891 03.11.2022 10.11.2022 Nil 07.01.2023 Nil
12. 613889 28.10.2022 10.11.2022 Nil 07.01.2023 Nil
13. 613885 27.10.2022 10.11.2022 Nil 07.01.2023 Nil
14. 613882 26.10.2022 10.11.2022 Nil 07.01.2023 Nil
15. 613881 26.10.2022 10.11.2022 Nil 07.01.2023 Nil
16. 613879 25.10.2022 10.11.2022 Nil 07.01.2023 Nil
17. 613876 18.10.2022 10.11.2022 Nil 07.01.2023 Nil
18. 613715 12.10.2022 10.11.2022 15.11.2022 17.12.2022 Nil
19. 613704 13.10.2022 10.11.2022 15.11.2022 17.12.2022 Nil
Page 1 of 42
20. 613702 13.10.2022 10.11.2022 15.11.2022 17.12.2022 Nil
21. 613718 14.10.2022 10.11.2022 15.11.2022 17.12.2022 Nil
22. 613716 14.10.2022 10.11.2022 15.11.2022 17.12.2022 Nil
23. 609671 28.09.2022 27.10.2022 Nil 21.11.2022 Nil
24. 609668 18.09.2022 17.10.2022 18.10.2022 21.11.2022 Nil
25. 606583 18.09.2022 17.10.2022 Nil 21.11.2022 Nil
The instant set of appeal(s) have been clubbed for decision as these relate to the same
subject matter.
Date of Hearing: 09.08.2024
Date of Decision: 21.08.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/619627
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.10.2022 seeking information regarding the circular or clause or Act or Ground on which the presiding officer is advising the victim to ask document from the department where the accused officer is sitting as Zonal head.
1.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 16.11.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Information sought Is In nature of seeking queries/clarification/interpretation/ hypothetical question, which Is beyond the scope of definition of Information as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005."
1.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.12.2022. The FAA's order dated 24.01.2023 held as under:
"Since the matter was dealt at ZO Jodhpur and hence the Presiding Officer of ICC, Apex Level (Head Office) advised you to seek the same from ZO, Jodhpur."
1.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Page 2 of 42Second Appeal No. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/619625
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.10.2022 seeking information on the following points:
a) The relation between the UCO bank and employee is a contract between them to serve and get paid for the same. Does this relationship come under Indian contract Act 1872 or not.
b) Does the evidence Act 1872 applicable on the employee of UCO bank or not for internal inquiry also.
c) Does the Present Labour law is applicable between the UCO bank and employee or not.
d) Which Law and policy is applicable between UCO bank and her employees? (Please provide the copy of circular, highlighting the exact para of concerned)
e) If a particular Law/ Act is not applicable which was formed by GOI please mention it also.
2.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 25.11.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Point (a) to (c) & (e) - Information sought is in nature of seeking queries/clarification/interpretation/hypothetical question, which is beyond the scope of definition of information as defined u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Point (d) - Employees of UCO bank are governed by "UCO bank (officers') service regulation, 1979", "UCO bank officer employees' Conduct & Discipline and Appeal regulations, 1976" and Memorandum of settlement on Disciplinary Action procedure for workmen."
2.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.12.2022. The FAA's order dated 10.01.2023 upheld the reply of CPIO.
2.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Page 3 of 42Second Appeal No. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/619621
3. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.10.2022 seeking information on the following points:
(i) The procedure for an aggrieved employee to approach higher authorities in case of workplace harassment done by BH or done with the consent of the BH.
(ii) What option does an aggrieved employee has in case of non-reply of the competent authorities.
(iii) Do the competent authorities of UCO Bank have the discretion to violate IPC sections?
(iv) The protection available to a whistle-blower in UCO Bank.
(v) Does UCO Bank support ignorance to the grievances of an employee and gender-based workplace harassment?
3.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 15.11.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Point (i) - It is informed that all your letters dated 03.12.2021, 09.06.2022, 16.06.2022 addressed to ZM, Jodhpur and letter dated 27.06.2022 addressed to GM, HRM, HO are not pending at HRM Department. The Department has already initiated the action and directed ZO, Jodhpur to conduct an investigation into the matter. Based on the Investigation Report, an intimation letter no. ZOJD/HRM/2022- 23/727 dated 21.09.2022 was sent to you by ZO, Jodhpur stating that based on the Investigation and report thereof, since no allegation as alleged by you in your complaints vide emails. letters, etc. were substantiated or established, hence your complaints were closed.
Further, with regard to relief as sought by you under Policy on Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 for leave, APAR etc., are not within the functional domain of GM, HRM rather the same is to be dealt by the respective Committee within the ambit of POSH Act. It is also informed that your Complaint with National Commission for Women was forwarded to Bank on Page 4 of 42 16.09.2022 which was immediately referred to the Committee for their investigation into the matter.
Point (ii) & (v) - Zonal Office, Jodhpur was advised on 28.06.2022 to Investigate into the grievances/issues raised by you through various e-mails & letters and further asked to submit an Enquiry report in the matter. In this regard, after Investigation, an intimation letter no. ZOJD/HRM/2022-23/727 dated 21.09.2022 was sent to you by ZO, Jodhpur stating that based on the investigation and report thereof, since no allegation as alleged by you in your complaints vide emails, letters, etc, were substantiated or established, hence your complaints were closed.
Point (iii) - Please be informed that based on the investigation conducted and report thereof, since no allegation as alleged by you in your complaints vide emails, letters, etc. were substantiated or established, hence your complaints were closed.
Point (iv) - Information sought is in nature of seeking queries/clarification/interpretation/ hypothetical question, which is beyond the scope of definition of information as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
However, please note that as per the Whistle Blower policy".....In order to protect the identity of the complaint, the Bank/ Designated Authority will not issue any acknowledgement of receipt of the complaint and the complaints/ Whistle Blower are advised not to enter into any further correspondence with Bank/ Designated Authority in their own interest....".
3.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.12.2022. The FAA's order dated 24.01.2023 upheld the reply of CPIO.
3.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Page 5 of 42Second Appeal No. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/619619
4. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.12.2022 seeking information on the following points:
Sir, I am Ms. Binni Dwivedi 53165, Manager in UCO Bank. An ICC was setup on my complaint and reference is made to reply of UCOBK/R/E/22/00574 dated 17.10.2022. (Copy attached for reference) As per the policy made by UCO bank on the basis of POSH Act 2013, reply is to be asked from the respondent(s) within 7 days of receiving the complaint. (Copy attached for the reference). Also, for any deviation in this Policy, the MD & CEO or in his absence the ED shall be the Competent Authority to take a decision. (Copy attached for the reference).
Please provide the following information in this regard.
(i) Please mention the reason for the delay / task done by the ICC between 26.09.2022 till 19.10.2022. Where it is worth to mention that the 19.10.2022 is the date on which the reply was asked from the accused officials. Whereas on 26.09.2022 the list of the accused officials was provided by me to ICC.
(ii) Reason for the deviation from the policy.
(iii) Copy of approval letter of the competent authority, confirming the policy
deviation.
4.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 16.01.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Due to leg injury of the Presiding Officer on 10.10.2022, she was on leave and reported to Office on 17.10.2022 when the matter was referred to her."
4.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.01.2023. The FAA vide order dated 25.01.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Page 6 of 42Second Appeal No. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/619617
5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.12.2022 seeking information on the following points:
Sir, I am Ms. Binni Dwivedi 53165, Manager in UCO Bank. An ICC was setup on my complaint and reference is made to reply of UCOBK/R/E/22/00574 dated 17.10.2022. (Copy attached for reference) Please provide the following information in this regard.
(i) Pdf format of the email sent to all the accused officers.
(ii) Copy of attachment sent (if any)/questionnaire to all the accused officers sent on 19.10.22
(iii) Copy of reply received from all the accused officers.
5.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 16.01.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Since investigation process in the said matter is still ongoing by the ICC Apex Level Committee, hence the information sought in the RTI application is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005."
5.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.01.2023. The FAA vide order dated 25.01.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
5.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/619615
6. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.12.2022 seeking information on the following points:
Page 7 of 42 Sir, I am Ms. Binni Dwivedi 53165, Manager in UCO Bank. An ICC was setup on my complaint and reference is made to reply of UCOBK/R/E/22/00574 dated 17.10.2022. (Copy attached for reference) Please provide the following information in this regard.
(i) Details of the all the Video conference completed till date. Please mention the details of date and time, duration, agenda and person(s) attended.
(ii) Details of all the cancelled/ postponed video conferences till date, along with the reasons for its cancellation.
6.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 16.01.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Since investigation process in the said matter is still ongoing by the ICC Apex Level Committee, hence the information sought in the RTI application is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005."
6.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.01.2023. The FAA vide order dated 25.01.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
6.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/613866
7. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.10.2022 seeking information on the following points:
(i) I am Mrs Binni Dwivedi 53165, Manager, Posted at Gangashahar branch Bikaner 0321, UCO bank. Kindly inform me about the Action taken by the competent authority On letter attached as pdf.
7.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 14.11.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:
Page 8 of 42"In this context, please be informed that vide your letter dated 27.06.2022 addressed to GM, HRM, Head Office, you have raised your grievance related to Bank's Barmer Branch and connected issues thereto, thereafter, you have through various e-mails & letters, etc., including letter dated 12.08.2022 made auxiliary issues related to the matter.
Please be informed that in this context. Zonal Office, Jodhpur was advised on 28.06.2022 to investigate into the grievances/ issues raised by you and to submit an Enquiry report in the matter. In this regard, after final investigation concluded on ^ 30.08.2022, on intimation letter no. ZOJD/HRM/2022-23/727 dated 21.09.2022 was sent to you by ZO, Jodhpur stating that based on the investigation and, report thereof, since no allegation as alleged by you in your complaints vide emails, letters, etc. were substantiated or established, hence your complaints were closed.
However, regarding your issue of being marked LWP in system, please be informed that since you had applied leaves in system on medical ground without proper medical certificate / fitness certificate, which is violation of guideline stated in Regulation 34 of UCO Bank (Officer's) Service Regulations, 1979 and hence, ZO, Jodhpur hod marked your LWP in HRMS."
7.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.11.2022. The FAA vide order dated 23.12.2022 observed as under:
"It is learnt that a parallel investigation by the ICC Apex Level Committee on your complaint is still ongoing under POSH Act and many information/facts including the enquiry report under reference which has been sought by you, have been shared to ICC team for fair and impartial investigation.
Therefore, shoring the investigation report under RTI Act, 2005 at this juncture may impede the investigation under POSH Act. Therefore, the investigation report under reference, is exempted from disclosure under section 8(l)(h) of RTI Act, 2005 till the conclusion of investigation by the ICC Apex Level Committee under POSH Act. After conclusion of the POSH enquiry you will get all that you are entitled to get under the Act."Page 9 of 42
7.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/613863
8. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.10.2022 seeking information on the following points:
"I am Mrs. Binni Dwivedi 53**5, Manager, Posted at Gangashahar branch Bikaner 0321, UCO bank. Kindly inform me about the Action taken by the competent authority On letter attached as pdf."
8.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 14.11.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"In this context, please be informed that vide your letter dated 27.06.2022 addressed to GM, HRM, Head Office, you have raised your grievance related to Bank's Barmer Branch and connected issues thereto, thereafter, you have through various e-mails & letters, etc., including letter dated 12.08.2022 made auxiliary issues related to the matter.
Please be informed that in this context, Zonal Office, Jodhpur was advised on 28.06.2022 to investigate into the grievances/ issues raised by you and to submit an Enquiry report in the matter. In this regard, after final investigation concluded on 30.08.2022, an intimation letter no. ZOJD/HRM/2022-23/727 dated 21.09.2022 was sent to you by ZO, Jodhpur stating that based on the investigation and report thereof, since no allegation as alleged by you in your complaints vide emails, letters, etc. were substantiated or established, hence your complaints were closed.
However, regarding your APAR Score, please be informed that there is a designated portal / mechanism for raising grievances related to APAR within stipulated time. Moreover, in the grievance raised by you on the designated portal for the appraisal year 2021-22, the same has been addressed by the Competent Authority and resolved as deemed fit."Page 10 of 42
8.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.11.2022. The FAA vide order dated 23.12.2022 observed as under:
"It is learnt that a parallel investigation by the ICC Apex Level Committee on your complaint is still ongoing under POSH Act and many information/facts including the enquiry report under reference which has been sought by you, have been shared to ICC team for fair and impartial investigation.
Therefore, sharing the investigation report under RTI Act, 2005 at this juncture may impede the investigation under POSH Act. Therefore, the investigation report under reference, is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005 till the conclusion of investigation by the ICC Apex Level Committee under POSH Act. After conclusion of the POSH enquiry you will get all that you are entitled to get under the Act.
As such, your appeal is treated disposed off as per provisions of RTI Act, 2005."
8.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/613858
9. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.10.2022 seeking information on the following points:
"I am Mrs Binni Dwivedi 53165, Manager, Posted at Gangashahar branch Bikaner 0321, UCO bank. Kindly inform me about the Action taken by the competent authority On letter attached as pdf."
9.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 14.11.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"In this context, please be informed that vide your letter dated 27.06.2022 addressed to GM, HRM, Head Office, you have raised your grievance related to Bank's Barmer Branch and connected issues thereto, thereafter, you have through various e-mails & letters, etc., including letter dated 19.07.2022 made auxiliary issues related to the matter.Page 11 of 42
In this context. Zonal Office, Jodhpur was advised on 28.06.2022 to investigate into the grievances/ issues raised by you and to submit an Enquiry report in the matter. In this regard, after investigation, on intimation letter no. ZOJD/HRM/2022-23/727 dated 21.09.2022 was sent to you by ZO, Jodhpur stating that based on the investigation and, report thereof, since no allegation as alleged by you in your complaints vide emails, letters, etc. were substantiated or established, hence your complaints were closed."
9.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.11.2022. The FAA vide order dated 23.12.2022 observed as under:
"It is learnt that a parallel investigation by the ICC Apex Level Committee on your complaint is still ongoing under POSH Act and many information/facts including the enquiry report under reference which has been sought by you, have been shared to ICC team for fair and impartial investigation.
Therefore, shoring the investigation report under RTI Act, 2005 at this juncture may impede the investigation under POSH Act. Therefore, the investigation report under reference, is exempted from disclosure under section 8(l)(h) of RTI Act, 2005 till the conclusion of investigation by the ICC Apex Level Committee under POSH Act. After conclusion of the POSH enquiry you will get all that you are entitled to get under the Act."
9.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/MOFIN/A/2023/607981/UCOBK
10. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.10.2022 seeking information on the following points:
I request you to provide me the following information regarding point no. A11 mentioned in show cause notice no. ZOJD/VIG2022-23/36 dated 29 Sep 22.
(i) The date on which the incident took place.
(ii) The date on which for the first time, it was brought to the notice of any bank
authority.
Page 12 of 42
(iii) Action taken by the BH on this matter before issue of this show cause.
(iv) Keeping in view the Zero-tolerance policy of the bank, whether the CCTV
footage of the branch has been preserved or not.
(v) The date on which it was brought to the notice of ZO." Etc.
10.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 10.11.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"आपको एक कारण बताओ नोिटस िदनां क 29.09.2022 को जारी िकया गया था िजसका उ र आप ारा प िदनां क 05.10.2022 ारा िदया गया है , जो िवचाराधीन है अतः संबंिधत सूचना, सूचना का अिधकार अिधिनयम, 2005 की धारा 8 (1)(h) केतहत छूट 3ा4 है ।."
10.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated Nil. The FAA vide order dated 12.12.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
10.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/613891
11. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.11.2022 seeking information on the following points:
Reference is made to UCOBK/R/E/22/00518 dated 28 Sep 22. (Copy attached) I copied Section 8 (h) from the bare Act. "Information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders"
Along with case law of Bhagat Singh v. CIC, (2008) 100 DRJ 63; Court made a significant observation with respect to the interplay of Section 3 and Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 and further remarked, "Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be Page 13 of 42 interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself. Under Section 8, exemption from releasing information is granted if it would impede the process of investigation or the prosecution of the offenders. It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, Section 8 (1) (h) and other such provisions would become the haven for dodging demands for information."
(i) Point no. 1 to 7.
I request you to provide me the satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Please give separate reasons for all 7 points.
(ii) Point no. 8 I didn't find any such point in the mentioned circular, request you to provide me a copy of the same, highlighting the mentioned point.
11.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 10.11.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"आपको एक कारण बताओ नोिटस िदनां क 29.09.2022 को जारी िकया गया था िजसका उ र आप ारा प िदनां क 05.10.2022 ारा िदया गया है , जो िवचाराधीन है अतः संबंिधत सूचना, सूचना का अिधकार अिधिनयम, 2005 की धारा 8 (1)(h) केतहत छूट 3ा4 है ।"
11.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated Nil. The FAA vide order dated 07.01.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
11.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Page 14 of 42Second Appeal No. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/613889
12. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.10.2022 seeking information on the following points:
I am Mrs. Binni Dwivedi Manager at UCO Bank. I have to inform you that my reimbursements are pending at b/o Barmer. for the same I wrote an application and sent it to them on 19 Jul 22, followed by 5 reminders.
(i) I request you to give reasons for the delay. Such as mail not being received or any other.
(ii) Point vise reply of all 6 points mentioned by me in the attachment.
12.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 10.11.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"आपको एक कारण बताओ नोिटस िदनां क 29.09.2022 को जारी िकया गया था िजसका उ र आप ारा प िदनां क 05.10.2022 ारा िदया गया है , जो िवचाराधीन है अतः संबंिधत सूचना, सूचना का अिधकार अिधिनयम, 2005 की धारा 8 (1)(h) केतहत छूट 3ा4 है ।"
12.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated Nil. The FAA vide order dated 07.01.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
12.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/613885
13. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.10.2022 seeking information on the following points:
Sir, I am Mrs. Binni Dwivedi 53165, Manger UCO bank. During my last transfer from Barmer to Bikaner I was given 2800 in my eligible amount for transportation.Page 15 of 42
(i) I request you to provide the name of a few transporters who will transport one full luggage truck from Barmer to Bikaner at this price.
(ii) I am attaching a sanctioned copy of TADA bill for your reference.
13.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 10.11.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"आपको एक कारण बताओ नोिटस िदनां क 29.09.2022 को जारी िकया गया था िजसका उ र आप ारा प िदनां क 05.10.2022 ारा िदया गया है , जो िवचाराधीन है अतः संबंिधत सूचना, सूचना का अिधकार अिधिनयम, 2005 की धारा 8 (1)(h) केतहत छूट 3ा4 है ।."
13.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated Nil. The FAA vide order dated 07.01.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
13.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/613882
14. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.10.2022 seeking information on the following points:
My RTI UCOBK/R/E/22/00488 dated 18 Sep 22 and its reply is attached. (For ready reference).
(i) Point no. 1.
The decision of competent authority.
A. For 06 dec 21. No reply was given by CPIO.
B. For 30 Aug 22. Reply was given by attaching a copy of messenger, who clearly mentioned in line that competent authority has advised for closure. Messenger may have power to act as competent authority but in the provided letter he himself mentioning that he was just passing the instruction. Kindly provide the original copy of the decision. (Instead of a letter of the Messenger).Page 16 of 42
(ii) Point no. 2 & 4 No reply has been received for the information regarding point no 2 & 4 on the basis of sec 8h of RTI act 2005.
From bare Act I copied the line. "Information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders"
Case Law:
Bhagat Singh v. CIC, (2008) 100 DRJ 63; Court made a significant observation with respect to the interplay of Section 3 and Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 and further remarked, "Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself. Under Section 8, exemption from releasing information is granted if it would impede the process of investigation or the prosecution of the offenders. It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, Section 8 (1) (h) and other such provisions would become the haven for dodging demands for information."
As it was mentioned that the previous inquiry was complete and the decision for same was seen by Zonal Head, which I assume to be true. Point No.2.
A) How the information regarding previously closed investigation of 06 dec 2021 will impede the new investigation mentioned by you. Give satisfactory reasons for point no 2.
Page 17 of 42B) How the information regarding previously closed investigation of 30 Aug 22 will impede the new investigation mentioned by you. Give satisfactory reasons for point no 2.
Point No.4.
A) How the information regarding previously closed investigation of 06 dec 2021 will impede the new investigation mentioned by you. Give satisfactory reasons for point no 4.
B) How the information regarding previously closed investigation of 30 Aug 22 will impede the new investigation mentioned by you. Give satisfactory reasons for point no 4..." etc. 14.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 10.11.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"आपको एक कारण बताओ नोिटस िदनां क 29.09.2022 को जारी िकया गया था िजसका उ र आप ारा प िदनां क 05.10.2022 ारा िदया गया है , जो िवचाराधीन है अतः संबंिधत सूचना, सूचना का अिधकार अिधिनयम, 2005 की धारा 8 (1)(h) केतहत छूट 3ा4 है ।."
14.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated Nil. The FAA vide order dated 07.01.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
14.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/613881
15. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.10.2022 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Total no of inquiry in the bank in which I acted as witness / accused / victim/ any other role.Page 18 of 42
(ii) Reason of all such inquiry and the reference no. (clearly showing the file reference no. and date) also provide the copy of the same.
(iii) My role in the inquiry such as Witness / accused / Victim/ any other role.
(iv) UCO Bank circular according to which a victim can be given show cause in the inquiry. (Please provide the copy of circular, highlighting the exact para of concern)
(v) How many Inquiry / Show cause notices / Explanation Letters issued to me from BO Barmer and in my present branch have been closed/ completed?..." etc. 15.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 10.11.2022 denied the information under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005.
15.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated Nil. The FAA vide order dated 07.01.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
15.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/613879
16. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.10.2022 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Who have accessed the email earlier as the password should be only available to BH?
(ii) Is WhatsApp an official channel? (Exact incident: As Reply which was sent on the WhatsApp is not accepted as a reply by the BH and told that same reply must be sent on email of branch.
(iii) Is WhatsApp group an official group? (In normal condition without the above-mentioned incident) Page 19 of 42
(iv) Communication done on WhatsApp is authentic or not please provide the copy of the circular & highlighting the particular point for your support.
(v) Shall the reply of the show cause can be sent to some other person in the same office? If it is not allowed then provide me the copy of the circular & highlighting the particular point for your support describing the mode of dispatch for the reply to show cause notice. (Exact incident: the copy sent to Ms. Matesh (Asst Manager in the same Branch) to give hard copy to BH.
Which was denied by the BH to accept).." etc. 16.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 10.11.2022 denied the information under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005.
16.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated Nil. The FAA vide order dated 07.01.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
16.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/613876
17. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.10.2022 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Name culprit officers who deducted the salary of around 2 lacs before conducting of inquiry.
(ii) What action has UCO bank taken against such officials such as termination or suspension or any other action.
(iii) Bank will fill FIR against those officers who willfull deducted the salary without inquiry.
(iv) Or this is my responsibility to file FIR against the culprit officers.Page 20 of 42
17.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 10.11.2022 denied the information under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005.
17.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated Nil. The FAA vide order dated 07.01.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
17.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/613715
18. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.10.2022 seeking information on the following points:
(i) The details of the officials present in the ICC team formed to investigate into the matter.
(ii) Mandates allotted for the investigation.
(iii) Power vested with the investigating officer who are looking into the case.
(iv) Copy of the Uco bank policies and procedure which will be followed during the
investigation.
(v) Action taken by ICC till date.
(vi) Whether the ICC has taken the custody of CCTV footage and digital footprint of
the mail history as requested by the complainant.
(vii) Steps taken by the competent authority to avoid undue influence and evidence tempering example suspension of accused officials etc.
(viii) What relief has been given to the complainant during the pendency of inquiry.
18.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 10.11.2022 denied the information under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005.
Page 21 of 4218.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.11.2022. The FAA vide order dated 17.12.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
18.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/613704
19. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.10.2022 seeking information on the following points:
"Kindly provide me (Mrs. Binni Dwivedi) the following information regarding the email received by me from Zonal head ZO Jodhpur UCO bank.
(i) The detailed schedule of all three mentioned investigation.
(ii) Copy of the letter provided to me (Mrs. Binni Dwivedi) for all three investigation.
(iii) Copy of the letter provided to accused officials for all three investigation.
(iv) Reason for postponing first and second investigation.
(v) Copy of the letter postponing first and second investigation.
(vi) Proof of dispatch/ acknowledgment/ mail history of all the above mentioned letters.
(vii) What was the agenda of mentioned investigation.
(viii) Whether the CCTV recording was ordered to save before conducting the investigation."
19.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 10.11.2022 denied the information under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005.
19.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.11.2022. The FAA vide order dated 17.12.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
Page 22 of 4219.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/613702
20. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.10.2022 seeking information on the following points:
"I request you to provide me the following information regarding point no. A15, B 1, B5, B 6 and C1 mentioned in show cause notice no. ZOJD/VIG2022- 23/36 dated 29 Sep 22. I request you to provide the details for all the five points separately.
(i) Copy of original complaint.
(ii) The date of reporting.
(iii) The mode of reporting (verbal or written).
(iv) Whether it was reported by the individual himself or the initiative was taken
by the management for him to report.
(v) The exact incident(s).
(vi) The procedure of reporting.
(vii) The intentions of the authority to whom the incident has been reported.
(viii) Reason why the show cause for same is not issued at branch level but issued from ZO."
20.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 10.11.2022 denied the information under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005.
20.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.11.2022. The FAA vide order dated 17.12.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
20.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Page 23 of 42Second Appeal No. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/613718
21. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.10.2022 seeking information on the following points:
Kindly provide me the following information regarding the email received by me from Senior manager HRM department ZO Jodhpur UCO bank on 28 Sep 22.
(i) Email history printout in pdf format by which the all concerned officers are informed.
(ii) Email history or digital proof showing appointment of the inquiry committee members.
(iii) Is it possible according to UCO bank policy that a junior officer can conduct a inquiry of senior officer. If so please provide the copy of the same.
(iv) Is it possible according to UCO bank policy that before conduct of inquiry clean chit can be given to accused. If so please provide the copy of same.
(v) What steps taken before inquiry to make it free from undue influence.
21.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 10.11.2022 denied the information under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005.
21.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.11.2022. The FAA vide order dated 17.12.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
21.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/613716
22. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.10.2022 seeking information on the following points:
Page 24 of 42"Kindly provide me the following information regarding the email received by me from Senior manager HRM department ZO Jodhpur UCO bank on 28 Sep 22.
(i) The details of scheduled investigation.
(ii) What was the agenda point of the mentioned investigation.
(iii) Details of all the accused officials under this investigation.
(iv) Original inquiry letter as this email does not have any REFERENCE NO.
(v) The person who is appointed as the head of the inquiry committee and other
members.
(vi) Whether the inquiry conducted or not.
(vii) If inquiry not conducted then the reason for postponing or cancellation of the same.
(viii) Any officer under investigation requested for postponing the above inquiry then kindly provide the pdf copy of the same."
22.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 10.11.2022 denied the information under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005.
22.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.11.2022. The FAA vide order dated 17.12.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
22.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/609671
23. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.09.2022 seeking information on the following points:
"Reference is made to letter No. ZO JD /HRM/ 2022-23/727 dated 21 sep 22 copy attached. I required the following information.Page 25 of 42
(i) Decisions of the competent authority in digital format actual photo or pdf showing full details.
(ii) Investigation reports mentioned in letter
(iii) Enclosures mentioned in letter
(iv) The dates and places with branch code of the branch where investigation was
carried out with approx. time.
(v) Expenses done on the investigation.
(vi) Name and details of the investigation officers and decision making authority.
(vii) Details of evidence such as CCTV or documents they have checked during investigation.
(viii) Any bank circular which define the quantum of punishment to investigation officer if he carry out fake report intentional."
23.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 27.10.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
िब7दु 9मां क 01 से 07 के संदभ; म< -
इस संबंध म< हम आपको सूिचत करना चाहते है िक आपको एक कारण बताओ नोिटस िदनां क 29.09.2022 को जारी िकया गया था िजसका उ र आप ारा प िदनां क 05.10.2022 ारा िदया गया है , जो िक िवचाराधीन है अतः संबंिधत सूचना, सूचना का अिधकार अिधिनयम, 2005 की धारा 8(H) के तहत छूट 3ा4 है ।
िब7दु 9मां क 08 के संदभ; म< -
आप ारा चाही गयी सू चना िविश? @प से सू चना के @प म< उपलB नहीं है परं तु हम आपको सूिचत करना चाहते है िक बCक अिधकारी के िवDE दं डाGक काय;वाही यूको बCक अिधकारी कम;चारी (अनुशासन एवं अपील) िनयम 1976 के तहत की जाती है ।
Page 26 of 4223.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated Nil. The FAA vide order dated 21.11.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
23.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/609668
24. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.09.2022 seeking information on the following points:
"I am Binni Dwivedi-53165, Manager UCO Bank. I am facing workplace harassment and two investigations were done on my grievances. First investigation was conducted on 06.12.2021 in BO: Barmer (2422) and the second investigation was done on 30.08.2022 in BO: Bikaner Main (0116). I request you to provide me the following data.
(i) The Decision of the competent authority.
(ii) A copy of the investigation proceedings.
(iii) The expenses incurred on these investigations.
(iv) The designation and details of the officers who conducted these investigations.
(v) Action taken report on my complaints."
24.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 17.10.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
िब7दु 9मां क 01 एवं 05 के संदभ; म< -
इस संबंध म< अनुलHक 1 @प म< संलHक 3ा4 कर< ।
िब7दु 9मां क 02 एवं 04 के संदभ; म< -
इस संबंध म< हम आपको सूिचत करना चाहते है िक आपको एक कारण बताओ नोिटस िदनां क 29.09.2022 को जारी िकया गया था िजसका उ र आप ारा प िदनां क Page 27 of 42 05.10.2022 ारा िदया गया है जो िक िवचाराधीन है अतः संबंिधत सूचना, सूचना का अिधकार अिधिनयम, 2005 की धारा 8 (H) के तहत छूट 3ा4 है ।
िब7दु 9मां क 03 के संदभ; म< -
आप ारा चाही गयी सू चना, सूचना के @प म< उपलB ना होने के कारण हम आपको उपलB कराने म< असमथ; है ।
24.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.10.2022. The FAA vide order dated 21.11.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
24.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/606583
25. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.09.2022 seeking information on the following points:
"I am Binni Dwivedi-53165, Manager UCO Bank. I am facing workplace harassment. My LWP has been marked from 28.04.2022 to 02.07.2022. I request you to provide me the following data in this regard:
(i) A copy of the letter no. UCO/BARMER/HRM/2022-23/178 DATED 23.06.2022.
(ii) A copy of the letter no. UCO/BARMER/2022-23/179 DATED 11.07.2022.
(iii) The forwarding letter of ZO Jodhpur.
(iv) Remarks of the decision-making authority on these letters.
(v) The mode of despatch and the date of receiving of the letters by ZO Jodhpur and
HO HRM Dept."
25.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 17.10.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-Page 28 of 42
िब7दु 9मां क 01, 02 एवं 04 के संदभ; म< -
इस संबंध म< हम आपको सूिचत करना चाहते है िक आपको एक कारण बताओ नोिटस िदनां क 29.09.2022 को जारी िकया गया था िजसका उ र आप ारा प िदनां क 05.10.2022 ारा िदया गया है जो िक िवचाराधीन है अतः संबंिधत सूचना, सूचना का अिधकार अिधिनयम, 2005 की धारा 8(H) के तहत छूट 3ा4 है ।
िब7दु 9मां क 03 के संदभ; म< -
आप ारा चाही गयी सूचना अI? होने के कारण हम आपको उपलB कराने म< असमथ; है ।
िब7दु 9मां क 05 के संदभ; म< -
आप ारा चाही गयी सू चना, सूचना के @प म< उपलB ना होने के कारण हम आपको उपलB कराने म< असमथ; है ।"
25.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated Nil. The FAA vide order dated 21.11.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
25.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Hearing Proceedings & Decision
26. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, Mr. Manoj Kumar, UCO Bank, Jaipur attended the hearing through audio conference and Mr. V K Thappa, CPIO, UCO Bank, Kolkata attended the hearing through video conference.
27. The Respondent UCO Bank Kolkata, submitted that all the information sought was already supplied to the appellant during the disciplinary proceedings along with copies of daily proceedings. Moreover, she was provided with adequate opportunity to defend her Page 29 of 42 case at all stages. The Respondent further tendered their written submission(s) dated 09.08.2024, contents of which is reproduced hereunder:
"...A humble reference is invited to the Notice of Hearing in the above 9 (Nine) Second Appeals filed by Mrs. Binni Dwivedi before the Hon'ble Commission against the respective replies of the CPIO on her RTI Applications in compliance with the provisions of RTI Act, 2005.
We also acknowledge written Submissions dated 02.08.2024 furnished by Mrs. Binni Dwivedi before the Hon'ble Commission in relation to her Second Appeal(s) before the Hon'ble Commission. We have perused the Written submissions made by her and we firmly deny each and every allegations contained therein, which are not specifically admitted herein. Further, the relief sought by her are not tenable, as Bank has not violated any provision of RTI Act and furnished replies in compliance with the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. It is respectfully submitted that the CPIO have sufficiently and substantially furnished/ dealt with the relevant RTI Application to the best of their belief and ability, from the available records. However, the CPIO has also sought exemption from disclosure of the information on certain points of RTIs u/Section 8 (1) (h) of the Act, as during relevant period the Enquiry/ Investigation before the ICC-Apex Level was under process and pending. In addition to the above, we would like to submit some additional facts for your kind consideration as under:
1. That the Bank has well delineated Policy on complaint mechanism in form of Whistle Blower Policy, Policy on Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal), 2013 and Online Compliant in form of Raise issue in HRMS.
2. Mrs. Binni Dwivedi lodged multiple complaints related to allege workplace harassment at Bank's Barmer Branch under Zonal Office, Jodhpur through her various e-mails/ letters before the various authorities. Bank has investigated the matter, however, based on the Investigation Report(s) submitted at various level(s), Page 30 of 42 the allegations as alleged by her could not be substantiated or established, hence, her Complaints were closed.
3. Further, Mrs. Binni Dwivedi forwarded a Compliant to the Hon'ble National Commission for Women vide file no. 8/C220021634/2022/NCW/MEM/SHS dated 16.09.2022 and the same was forwarded by the Commission to the Bank with direction to get the Complaint Investigated. In compliance with direction, the Complaint of Ms. Binni Dwivedi was forwarded to Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) (which is the Apex level body for dealing with such grievances) for inquiry and investigation in our Bank, which was proceeded and concluded as per the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 and Bank's internal guidelines in this regard. The ICC-Apex Level conducted detailed inquiry/investigation and vide Finding & Report dated 16.02.2023 concluded that the charges of sexual harassment are not upheld.
4. It is also informed that during the period from 18.09.2022 to 22.12.2023. Mrs. Binni Dwivedi lodged 97 (Ninety Seven) number of RTIs to the CPIO at Head Office which was on similar and identical issues, repetitively in nature. However, we have responded to each and every RTI in terms of the RTI Act. 2005. It is also not out of place to mention here that the Applicant herein has also lodged 88 (Eighty Eight) RTI Applications before the CPIO at Zonal Office, Jodhpur. It is evident that the Applicant has misused the RTI Act as a tool to harass the Public Authority under the said Act.
5. It is humbly put-forth that the Bank has proceeded against the Applicant herein for misconduct committed by her while functioning at Bank's Barmer Branch and vide Final Order dated 04.09.2023 she was removed from Bank's service which shall not be disqualification for future employment.
6. It is also pertinent to mention here that the Applicant has filed a SB Civil Writ Petition No. 9522 of 2023 before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur challenging, inter alia, several issues including disciplinary Page 31 of 42 proceedings and point of harassment and other incidental matter are subject matter of said Writ Petition. The same is sub-judice before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur. The next date of hearing in the matter is 13.08.2024.
7. It is also politely submitted that the Applicant is filing repeated RTI applications asking similar information before the Hon'ble Commission, which is abuse of process of Law provided for bonafide Applicants under RTI Act, 2005.
ln light of the above submissions, we request you to dismiss all the Nine Second Appeal which is devoid of any merit..."
29. The Respondent, UCO Bank Jodhpur, submitted that all the information sought was already supplied to the appellant during the disciplinary proceedings along with copies of daily proceedings. Moreover, she was provided with adequate opportunity to defend her case at all stages. The Respondent further tendered their written submissions dated 09.08.2024, contents of which is reproduced hereunder:
"...It is submitted that Competent Authority has initiated Disciplinary Proceedings against Appellant Mrs. Binni Dwivedi for not maintaining good conduct and discipline by issuing Show Cause Notice dated 29.09.2022 followed by Chargesheet dated 02.03.2023. Subsequently she was Removed from services of Bank by vide final order dated 04.09.2023 after detailed enquiry proceedings. It is respectfully submitted that the enquiry was conducted in a free and fair manner with due regard to natural justice and procedure prescribed under service rules.
Further the appellant had also alleged work place harassment before higher authorities which were adequately dealt with by the forming committees. The appellant also made a complaint before the National Commission for Women, which was forwarded to ICC, which is the apex level body for dealing with such grievances wherein aspect of the matter was minutely examined by the ICC, and it was concluded vide report dated 16.02.2023 that the allegations made by the appellant in her complaint are not established, which were duly intimated to the appellant.Page 32 of 42
It is pertinent to mention here that a Writ is also pending before Hon'ble High Court, Jodhpur wherein the Appellant has challenged the proceedings of Sexual harassment and Disciplinary Proceedings vide WP 9522/2023 and next date of hearing in the matter is 13.08.2024.
SUBMISSIONS: It is submitted, with respect to subject appeals, that the CPIO have sufficiently and substantially furnished/dealt with the relevant RTI Application to the best of their ability from available records. However, the CPIO has also denied the information as sought in the RTI Applications u/s 8(1)(h) of the Act as during the relevant period the abovesaid Disciplinary proceedings were pending against the appellant. Therefore, the disclosure of information was exempted u/s 8(1)(h) as the same was related to complaints raised by customers and Branch Officials and as such it could impede the process of inquiry for disciplinary action by way of undue influence, threat to witness or destruction of evidence relating to misconduct.
It is respectfully submitted that each inquiry/investigation related relevant information sought through RTI has already been provided to the appellant vide relevant correspondence during the course of said inquiry/investigation proceedings.
It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant is in habit of filing repeated RTI applications asking for similar information. Appellant is trying to harass public authority by filing numerous RTI application asking for all and sundry information due to the fact that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her for misconduct committed while discharging her duties The appellant, since 18.09.2022 to 28.04.2023 had filed 88 RTI applications seeking multiple information containing numerous points and arising out of reply from earlier RTI 61 First Appeals has been filed by the appellant. The appellant used to raise several objections and issues from the reply given and uses them as a basis for further RTI applications or appeals. The appellant picks up points from earlier reply of public authority and then asks notings, reasons and other related documents around the letter without any rhyme or reason and purpose or logic. The apparent act of numerous Page 33 of 42 questions in each of the application of the appellant is complete misuse and mockery of the Act.
The Commission in the case of Mukesh Sharma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (CIC/SA/A/2014/000615) had observed as follows:
"Every employee has rights to secure his employment but also has duties to perform the job without resorting to misconduct or any other irregularity. The employee also has right to get the copy of complaint, notice, charge sheet and every piece of paper which is relied on against him. He bould get the opportunity also to defend himself. At the end he should also get the copy of enquiry report/order/judgment or sentence pronounced along with right of appeal. He has all rights as per principles of natural justice and if there is any lapse, or suppression of information or document or non- supply of papers relied on by the disciplinary authority, he can seek them from the inquiry officer or authority, if not, he can get them under RTI Act, Though an employee facing disciplinary charges as explained above the accused employee does not have any moral or legal right to file plethora of RTI applications seeking information not related lo allegation against him, but to harass the officers who he suspect to have complained or gave evidence or provided information or taken action against him, if done so it becomes misuse and that cannot be encouraged. The public interest is an overriding factor in these cases also as per the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005. If such multiple RTI actions are allowed the officers at higher level will lose moral authority to initiate action against erring employees and whole system of disciplined administration would crumble. In contra, there is a huge public interest in taking action against the wrongdoing employees."
It is humbly submitted that the respondents were compelled to spend most of the time in answering harassingly repeated questions about the same subject/ arising out of reply and repeatedly asked from different angle.
Page 34 of 42In Central Information Commission's decision dated 25.06.2014 in case No. CIC/AD/A/2013/001326-SA in Shri Ramesh Chand Jain vs Delhi Transport Corporation it was observed that "Appellant seeks some information from one wing of public authority and based on responses, file a bunch of RTI questions from same or other wing of public authority or from other authority. This will have a continuous harassing effect on the public authority. As the PIO go on answering, more and more questions are generated out of same and in same proportion the number of repeated first appeals will be growing."
It is submitted that whatever relevant information was sought by the appellant under RTI was supplied to her and was dealt with adequately, from time to time. It is pertinent to mention here that these kind of application shall exhaust the resource of the public authority and are lengthy and vexatious seeking all and sundry information from respondent authority. It is therefore requested that appeal preferred by appellant may be dismissed with Cost..."
30. The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that concededly, the Appellant is relentlessly filing RTI Application(s) and Appeal(s) on the same subject matter. A bare perusal of the contents of the RTI Application(s) under reference is indicative of the fact that access to information is not the concern of the Appellant as most of the instant RTI Application(s) do not even seek information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act while the remaining RTI Application(s) seek information similar to an earlier bunch of RTI Application(s); second appeals corresponding to which were decided by this bench on 27.06.2024 vide Second Appeal No. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/607979 + 13 other appeal(s) against UCO Bank. In the earlier decided matters where similar exemption of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act was invoked by the Respondent, the Commission had ordered limited relief to the Appellant.
Now since the Commission observes that the instant set of cases are a mere extension of the averred earlier cases, the Appellant is reminded of the fact that her right to information is far from being absolute and unconditional. That, it is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions must not only stand the test of procedural requirements and Page 35 of 42 fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality, a notion well recognised by the superior Courts in a catena of judgments such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & Anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
'37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility, and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties.' Page 36 of 42
31. Similarly, for better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.."
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:Page 37 of 42
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."
(Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary, (School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
(Emphasis Supplied) Page 38 of 42
32. The findings of the Commission in the instant set of matter(s) largely point towards a misuse of the RTI Act being perpetuated by the Appellant. Here, the Appellant's attention is again invited towards certain precedents set by the superior Courts recognizing the misuse of the RTI Act:
In ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC781, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
'39. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Sections 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and the Government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources.' In the matter of Rajni Maindiratta- Vs Directorate of Education (North West - B) [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
'8. Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto.' And, in the matter of Shail Sahni vs Sanjeev Kumar [W.P.(C) 845/2014] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
'...xxx Page 39 of 42 'This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law.'
33. In view of the foregoing observations, the Commission does not find it expedient to adjudge the merits of the action/inaction of the Respondent(s) with respect to the RTI Applications & First Appeal(s) under reference.
34. The Appellant is reminded that filing the same request with the CPIO by a mere interplay of words will not change the narrative of the case which has been already decided by the Commission. She is therefore strongly advised to desist from filing RTI Application(s) on the same grievance as her future appeal(s)/complaint(s) on the same matter are liable to be summarily dismissed. The Respondent(s) are also advised to take reference of the instant decision while dealing with any future RTI Application(s) of the Appellant on the same subject matter.
35. The Appeal(s) are dismissed accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 21.08.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कन ल एस एस िछकारा ( रटायड )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Page 40 of 42
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
UCO Bank, AGM & CPIO,
H.R.M. Department, Head Office,
4th Floor, 10, B.T.M. Sarani,
Kolkata, W. B.- 700001
2. The CPIO
UCO Bank,
CPIO, Strategic Planning Department,
Zonal Office: Jodhpur, 1st Floor, 461-
Pal Link Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan- 342008
3. Binni Dwivedi
Page 41 of 42
Annexure
Sl. No. Second Appeal Nos.
1. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/619627
2. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/619625
3. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/619621
4. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/619619
5. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/619617
6. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/619615
7. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/613866
8. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/613863
9. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/613858
10. CIC/MOFIN/A/2023/607981/UCOBK
11. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/613891
12. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/613889
13. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/613885
14. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/613882
15. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/613881
16. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/613879
17. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/613876
18. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/613715
19. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/613704
20. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/613702
21. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/613718
22. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/613716
23. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/609671
24. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/609668
25. CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/606583
Page 42 of 42
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)