Shivani vs Indian Overseas Bank on 13 September, 2019

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Shivani vs Indian Overseas Bank on 13 September, 2019

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 18.12.2017 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 01.08.2017 and first appeal dated 09.09.2017:-

Page 1 of 6

(i) The details of scale IV Officers appeared for Grade Promotion to SMG Scale V in 2015 & 2017 (Separate list for both years).

(ii) A copy of the rules and regulations of the Bank under which DA has given such punishment to Shri R.K. Shetty.

(iii) A copy of those rules and regulations under which disciplinary proceeding were taken against R. K. Shetty.

(iv) Give the name and address of the officer concerned who is looking after K. Shetty's case and his appeal.

(v) The reason for having such partiality and discrimination and provide a copy of such rules and regulations which permits to do such partiality and discrimination.

(vi) Give the name and address of the officer concerned who is looking after R.K. Shetty's case.

(vii) Reason for having such partiality and discrimination and which law permits you to protect these South Indians. Please provide me a copy of such rules and regulations.

(viii) Reason for having such partiality and discrimination and which law permits you to do such partial and discrimination. Please provide me a copy of such rules and regulations.

(ix) Copy of such rules and regulations which permits you to do such banking, partiality, discrimination because the dedicated staff are ignored.

(x) a copy of the rules and regulations which are empowering you to for such partiality and discrimination.

(xi) Copy of such rules and regulations which permits to do such partiality and discrimination.

Page 2 of 6

(xii) Copy of the rules and regulations which are empowers to do such postings for harming the Bank to affects branch functioning adversely and deteriorates customer service and decision making.

(xiii) The details of it and also provide me the rules and regulations which permits junior officer to sit on the chair of his next to next chair in the presence of his next who is available in the office.

(xiv) A copy of such rules and regulations which empowers you to leave the Consortium/Multiple Banking NPA borrowal accounts which is a public money in the interest of Country, General Public and Bank.

(xv) A copy of such rules and regulations in the interest of the Bank and Public money.

(xvi) A copy of visit Register of Central Office Main Building and its Annex Building since 01.01.2017 to till date.

(xvii) Advise me the amount incurred/cost of Finacle CBS Software, address of Shri R. Kotteswaram and name & address of others who are responsible for bringing Finacle CBS Software, in the interest of the Bank Money, Public Money, Customers (not getting good customer service due to Finacle) and staff who is finding it difficult facing customers since inception.

(xviii) A copy of Bank's rules and regulations which prohibits you from recruiting Messenger, Datary, Record Keeper, Sweeper etc in the interest of General Public, Bank of deterioration of its customer service, My Husband and Branch Manager/Other Staff who are being charge sheeted for the job of Sub-staff.

Page 3 of 6

(xix) A copy of such rules and regulations which empowers you to take four months time to complete the promotion process and for exploiting and spoiling our life.

(xx) A copy of such rules and regulations of the bank which prohibits bank for not issuing charge sheet to these three Top Official of the Bank.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 01.08.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, Anna Salai, Chennai seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 30.08.2017. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 09.09.2017. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 16.09.2017. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed the second appeal dated 18.12.2017 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 18.12.2017 inter alia on the grounds that she is aggrieved by the reply given by the CPIO and FAA as the information has been wrongly denied. She also contended that the information sought are of the larger public interest The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the certified copies of correct and complete information free of cost, impose penalty upon the CPIO for not providing the information and for misleading the appellant and take disciplinary action as per sub-sections (1) of section 20 of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 30.08.2017 gave a point wise reply and denied the information on point (1) of the RTI Application stating that the information sought is not available and is voluminous in nature. Information was denied on points (2), (3), Page 4 of 6 (5), (7),(8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (18), (19), & (20) of the RTI Application stating that the appellant was seeking reasons behind certain acts and not the information as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The CPIO also denied information on points (4), (6), (16) & (17) under clauses (e) & (j) of sub section (1) of section 8 of the RTI Act. The FAA vide his order dated 16.09.2017 agreed with the views taken by the CPIO.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Gurmit Singh, Chief Manager, Indian Overseas Bank attended the hearing through Video Conference.

5.1. The respondent submitted that appellant had sought multiple queries relating to several officers the information related to which were not maintained by them in due course. They would either have to create or compile such voluminous data and culling out the information would disproportionately divert the resources of public authority. Moreover, the information was also relating to third parties disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of their privacy. Therefore, the request made by the appellant was denied under section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, feels that due reply has already been given. The appellant has raised queries and has sought copy of direction from the public authority to issue charge sheet. The information was also relating to third party and the same was not permissible to be disclosed as per Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The Commission has perused the request of the appellant seeking adjournment. However, she has not cited any concrete reason for postponing the hearing. In view of this there may not be any public interest to accede to the request Page 5 of 6 of the appellant and further prolong the matter. With the aforementioned observations, the appeal is disposed of.

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

sd (Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 11.09.2019 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK RTI CELL, LAW DEPTT., CENTRAL OFFICE : P.B.NO. 3765, 763, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI - 600 002 THE F.A.A, Indian Overseas Bank, RTI CELL, LAWDEPTT., CENTRAL OFFICE : P.B.NO. 3765, 763, ANNASALAI, CHENNAI - 600 002 SHIVANI A-115, GOVIND PURAM, GHAZIABAD (U.P.) -201013 Uttar Pradesh, Ghaziabad Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission