Lakhanlal Swarnkar vs State Bank Of India on 7 January, 2020

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Lakhanlal Swarnkar vs State Bank Of India on 7 January, 2020

1. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the present CPIO Mr. Shailen Dharwa as well as Mr. S.N. Thakur, the then CPIO, State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Chhatarpur, M.P., in compliance of the Commission's order no. CIC/SBIND/A/2018/103588 dated 27.09.2019 for not furnishing the information to the appellant even after lapse of 2-1/2 years from the date of RTI application. The CPIOs Page 1 of 5 were directed to submit an explanation as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against each of them.

Hearing on 25.09.2019:

2. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Shailen Dharwa, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Chhatarpur, M.P. attended the hearing through video conference.

Interim Decision (27.09.2019):

3. The Commission passed the following directions on 27.09.2019:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, feels that this is a case of cheque bounce due to insufficient funds in the account of Mr. Julifkar Ali Bhutto. It is evident from perusal of the cheque and the Account Pay-in-Slip dated 19.04.2010 that the cheque was deposited in the bank and the wavering statements made by the respondent including the reply given by the respondent from time to time vide their letters dated 31.08.2016, 18.02.2017 and 06.04.2017, shows perfunctory handling of the case and self- contradictory statements made by the bank authorities including the receipt of cheque No. 48xxxx for an amount of Rs. 10,000/-. When the cheque came from Naugaon Branch to Chhatarpur, how the record was not available. However, they have made a statement in their letter dated 31.08.2016 that the cheque had been destroyed by Mr. Julifkar Ali Bhutto. It is not understood as to how the cheque had landed in the hands of a person who was responsible for malfeasance and how the same was allowed to bedestroyed by him. It is understood that when the cheque comes in the custody of bank authorities, it is a public document, and the same is required to be preserved in accordance with the rules and regulation on the subject. The Commission takes serious note of such approbation and reprobation by the bank authorities and denying the information to the appellant. In view of the aforementioned reasons, the Registry of this Commission is Page 2 of 5 directed to issue a show cause notice to the present CPIO Mr. ShailenDharwa as well as the then CPIO Mr. S.N. Thakur to explain as to why maximum penalty should not be imposed u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act for not providing the information even after a lapse of over 2-1/2 years from the date of RTI application. The respondent is also directed that the RTI application be re-visited and revised reply/information be provided to the appellant. All written submissions must reach the Commission within 21 days."

Hearing on 18.12.2019

4. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Sunil Saxena, CPIO and Shri Shailendra Dharwa, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Chhatarpur, attended the hearing through video conference.

5. The appellant inter alia submitted that desired information was not provided by the respondent despite show cause notice issued to them.The appellant further submitted that information sought by him was very important as cheque in question was not cleared and as a result he suffered financial loss.Therefore he argued for imposition of maximum penalty on the concerned CPIO for not providing the information.

5.1. The respondent inter alia submitted that no records with regard to the aforesaid cheque were available with them. They further submitted that this issue was also raised before the Consumer Forum by the appellant and the District Consumer Forum had directed the bank to pay compensation and litigation cost along with interest to the appellant. Accordingly, the respondent had deposited Rs. 5522 (towards interest+ compensation + litigation cost)to the District Consumer Forum.They argued for not imposing of any penalty as the issue had already been decided by the District Consumer Forum.

Page 3 of 5

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, notes that information/documents sought has not been provided to the appellant so far. Perusal of the respondent's letters dated 31.08.2016 reveals that the bank had sent a letter to the appellant wherein it was mentioned that Shri Julfikar Ali Bhutto had destroyed the cheque. However, the respondent had failed to provide any documents justifying their claim. It was also not clarified by the respondent as to how the records relating to the cheque in question was not available with them. However, the negligence on the part of the bank officials who handled the cheque is established to the extent that the cheque was allowed to be handed over to the drawer of cheque and consequent absolvement from the punitive action. The same act had resulted in perpetuating illegality. Hence the Commission directs the respondent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the concerned person who was responsible for handing over a financial instrument to a defaulter without proper accountability. The Commission further finds that reply given by the then CPIO and the present CPIO are contradictory and also explanations given by the respondents are not satisfactory. In view of this, the Commission finds that Mr. Shailen Dharwa, the present CPIO as well as the then CPIO Mr. S.N. Thakur are liable under section 20 (1) of RTI Act. Accordingly, a penalty of Rs. 10000/- (ten thousand) is being imposed upon each of them i.e.Mr. Shailen Dharwa, the present CPIO and Mr. S.N. Thakur, the then CPIO. The amount of total Rs.20,000/- (ten thousand each) shall be deducted from the salaries of Mr. Shailen Dharwa, the present CPIO and Mr. S.N. Thakur, the then CPIO, State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Chhatarpur, M.P., by the Public Authority in two equal monthly installments and remit by way of demand draft drawn in favour of "PAO, CAT", New Delhi and forward the demand drafts addressed to the Deputy Registrar (CR-II), email: [email protected] Room No. 106, First Floor, Central Page 4 of 5 Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi 110067. The first installment of penalty amount should reach to the Commission by 06.03.2020 and the final or last installment should reach the Commission by 06.04.2020. With the aforementioned directions, 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: 06.01.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES:

CPIO :

1. Sh. SHAILEN DHARWA (C.P.I.O) STATE BANK OF INDIA, Regional Business Office, Sagar Road, Chhatarpur MADHYA PRADESH

2. Sh. SHAILEN DHARWA (C.P.I.O) STATE BANK OF INDIA, Regional Business Office, Sagar Road, Chhatarpur MADHYA PRADESH (FOR - Sh. S.N. THAKUR - the then C.P.I.O) LAKHANLAL SWARNKAR Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission