Central Information Commission
S Ramalingam vs State Bank Of India on 16 May, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/117724
S Ramalingam ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: State Bank of India
Secunderabad ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 07.11.2022 FA : 16.02.2023 SA : 18.04.2023
CPIO : 06.12.2022 FAO : 15.03.2023 Hearing : 14.05.2024
Date of Decision: 15.05.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.11.2022 seeking information on the following points:
(i) I have filed a complaint to Honourable, C.G.M, Hyderabad Circle on 7/7/22 (copy enclosed) Against Moinabad Branch.
Please furnish the action taken report of the same under R.T.I. Act.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 06.12.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
With reference to your letter dated 07/11/2022 regarding staff misbehavior at Moinabad Branch and also RTI Application we advice you as under Page 1 of 3
• Name boards of the staff & Lunch break timing's are now displayed at respective counters at Moinabad branch.
• The branch is now using originals vouchers & pay in slips. • Ambience of the branch premises is now well lit & maintained properly. • With reference to the staff misbehavior, we have to advise that departmental enquiry report has been submitted to Appropriate Authority at LHO Hyderabad, and appropriate action as suggested will be taken in due course.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.02.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 15.03.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 18.04.2023.
5. The appellant remained present through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Pallav Raju, Regional Manager attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that action taken report has not been shared with him. He claimed that he had sought action taken on his own complaint.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the final outcome of the action taken has already been conveyed to the Appellate. Further the detailed action taken report contains third party information hence cannot be shared under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI act.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the Respondent has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application. Therefore, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. With this observation, the appeal is dismissed.
Page 2 of 3Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनां क/Date: 15.05.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कनल एस एस िछकारा ($रटायड) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO O/o Regional Manager State Bank of India Region-III, R.B.O. Vikarabad Admin, Office-II, Secunderabad, Ist Floor, Bhagyodaya Building, Near Patny Circle, R P Road, Secunderabad-500003
2. S Ramalingam Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)