Kamlesh Dwivedi vs Union Bank Of India on 13 December, 2022

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Kamlesh Dwivedi vs Union Bank Of India on 13 December, 2022

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated Nil include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 10.10.2020 and first appeal dated 14.11.2020:-

(i) यूिनयन ब क ऑफ़ इंिडया के े ीय काय . रीवा के अंतग त म. . रा य के रीवा, सीधी, सगरौली, सतना, अनुपपुर, उम!रया और शहडोल िजला के अधीन(थ संवग के अंतग त हाउसक*पर सह भृ.य के पद हेतु ०१ जनवरी १९९० के बाद 0कतनी भत1 अिधसूचना और कब िनकाली |

(ii) ०१ जनवरी १९९० के बाद .येक अिधसूचना क* एक ित दान कर4 |

(iii) .येक भत1 अिधसूचना के तहत िनयु6 0कये गए अ7यथ1 क* सूची अजा. अजजा. अ8य िपछड़ा वग अनारि त का िववरण देते <ए दान कर4 | Page 1 of 4

(iv) =या सभी भत1 0>या म4 भारत सरकार के िनयमावली का पालन 0कया गया है | अगर हाँ तो िनयमावली का एक ित दान कर4 |

(v) एक जनवरी १९९० से .येक भत1 म4 चयिनत .येक अ7य?थयो के िन@िलिखत द(तावेज़ दान कर4 :

अ) शाला छोड़ने का माण प ब) वोटर आई.डी. / Cाइ वग लाइस4स / राशन काड स) जाित माण प द) आयु माण प इ) शै िणक योFय के सGब8ध म4 माण प ई) काय अनुभव का माण प

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 10.10.2020 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Union Bank of India, Rewa, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 17.12.2020 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 14.11.2020. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 05.03.2021 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated Nil before the Commission which is under consideration.

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

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 17.12.2020 and the same is reproduced as under:-

Page 2 of 4

"i) यूिनयन ब क ऑफ़ इं िडया के े ीय काय लय रीवा के अंतग त म. . रा य के रीवा, सीधी, सगरौली, सतना, अनुपपुर िजले के सब (टाफ के अंतग त हाउसक*पर सह भृ.य के पद हेतु ०१ जनवरी १९९० के बाद १ भत1 अिधसूचना 0दनांक २१.०६.२०१३ को िनकली गयी थी |

ii) भत1 अिधसूचना क* ित संलंJ है |

iii) .येक भत1 अिधसूचना के तहत िनयु6 0कये गए अ7यथ1 क* सूची का कटन 0कसी लोक 0>याकलाप या िहत से सGब8ध नहK रखता तथा उसक* छाया ित दान 0कया जाने से सूचना का अिधकार अिधिनयम, २००५ क* धारा ८ (१) (L ) के अंतग त छू ट ाM है |

iv) भत1 0>या म4 ब क क* आतं!रक िनयमावली का पालन 0कया जाता है |

v) भत1 म4 चयिनत .येक अ7य?थयो के द(तावेज का कटन 0कसी लोक 0>याकलाप या िहत से सGब8ध नहK रखता तथा उसक* छाया ित दान 0कये जाने से सूचना का अिधकार अिधिनयम २००५ क* धारा ८ (१)(L) के अंतग त छू ट है |"

The FAA vide order dated 05.03.2021 agreed to the reply given by the CPIO.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Markandeya Yadav, Regional Head attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had already provided point-wise information to the appellant except on point nos. 3 and 5 of the RTI application vide letter dated 17.12.2020. They further submitted that information sought on point nos. 3 and 5 of the RTI application pertained to third party, disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest. Accordingly, they claimed exemption under section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that due reply was given by the respondent vide letter dated 17.12.2020. The appellant in his RTI application as well as in the first appeal failed to establish any larger public interest warranting disclosure of information to which the respondent denied on the ground of personal information of third party/candidates. Moreover, the appellant neither filed any written objection nor Page 3 of 4 presented himself before the Commission to controvert the averments made by the respondent and further agitate the matter. Hence, the submissions of the respondent were taken on record. The Commission is of the view that there is no public interest in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक/Date: 12.12.2022 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत#) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

The CPIO:

Union Bank of India Regional Office SIRMOR CHAURAHA, NH-7, ALLAHABAD ROAD, REWA - 486001 The First Appellant Authority Union Bank Of India UNION BANK BHAWAN, 2nd, FLOOR, 1513/1/1/ ARERAHILLS, BHOPAL Madhya Pradesh 462011 Ms. Kamlesh Dwivedi Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission