Central Information Commission
Mohit Kakkar vs Bank Of Baroda on 2 April, 2026
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2025/607296
Mohit Kakkar ......अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Bank of Baroda ....प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Date of Hearing : 01.04.2026
Date of Decision : 01.04.2026
Information Commissioner : Shri Surendra Singh Meena
Relevant Facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application : 10.12.2024
PIO replied on : 06.01.2025
First Appeal filed on : 10.01.2025
First Appeal Order on : 04.02.2025
2nd Appeal received on : 10.02.2025
CIC/BKOBD/A/2025/607296 Page 1 of 6
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.12.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"RTI Request Regarding omission if employees jn Inter-Zonal Transfers under longer stay and afterwards either transfer then adjacent region by change of Zone under compassionate or marital grounds or still retained/working in the same Zone. Sir/Madam, 1, Mohit Kakkar, Senior Manager, Employee Code 85298, submit this application under the Right to Information Act, 2005. I seek specific information regarding the omission of certain employees' names during the last Inter-Zonal Transfer (IZT) exercise under longer stay. These employees were transferred to adjacent zones and Region in turn on marital or compassionate grounds, despite such regions being within a 30 km radius or very close vicinity of their previous postings.
Zone-wise and Region-wise Data Kindly provide a zone-wise and region-wise count and name of such employees omitted from the IZT exercise under the above-mentioned grounds.
Kindly provide a zone-wise and region-wise count and name of such employees omitted from the IZT exercise under longer stay and sill working in the same zone.
Reason for Such Omission What was the Bank's rationale or motive behind omitting these employees during the IZT exercise under loner stay? Accountability and Responsibility Please identify the competent authority responsible for this anomaly.CIC/BKOBD/A/2025/607296 Page 2 of 6
What provisions are in place within the Bank to hold HR systems accountable for decisions that appear or proved to be favor certain employees or deviate from established policies? Policies and Provisions Provide details of the Bank's policies aimed at addressing such irregularities and preventing misuse of power or designation, particularly concerning transfers or changes of zone. This information request is not made on hypothetical grounds. I have data for some regions and am seeking comprehensive, Bank-wide data for transparency."
The CPIO replied vide letter dated 06.01.2025 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Reply of 1: The information sought pertains to personal information of third party and no larger public interest is involved hence exempted from disclosure under sec. 8(1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005.
Reply of 2: The information sought is interrogative and in the nature of seeking clarification which does not comes under the definition of information as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, no information can be provided.
Reply of 3: The information sought is not specific and in the nature of query, hence does not come under the purview of "Information" as laid down under Section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005.
Reply of 4: The information sought is not specific and vague in nature, which does not come under the purview of "Information" as per Section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005.
Hence no information can be provided."CIC/BKOBD/A/2025/607296 Page 3 of 6
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.01.2025. The FAA vide order dated 04.02.2025 stated as under:-
"The present appeal has been filed against the reply given to your RTI application vide Reg. No. BKOBD/R/E/24/02402 dated 10.12.2024.
In this regard, the undersigned has gone through your application and the subsequent annexure received by e-mail dated 21.01.2025 vis-a- vis the reply provided by the PIO vide Letter No. HO: LEGAL:117:
RTI:913/4993 dated 06.01.2025 and the contentions raised by the Appellant.
It is observed that the PIO has replied appropriately and has and has furnished valid grounds.
Hence, I concur with the view of the PIO and no intervention of the FAA is required."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The appellant was present in-person.
The respondent Mr. Arun Kumar Gupta, Dy. Zonal Manager and Mr. Himanshu Sharma, Chief Manager (Legal), were present through video conference.
The appellant inter alia submitted that the information sought has not been provided by the respondent.CIC/BKOBD/A/2025/607296 Page 4 of 6
The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the reply to the RTI application has been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 06.01.2025. A written submission dated 30.03.2026 of the respondent is stated as under:-
"a) The information sought vide point no. 1 of the RTI pertains to personal information of third party and no larger public interest is involved.
b) The query raised vide point no. 2 of the RTI application is in the nature of seeking clarification and is interrogative.
c) The query raised vide point no. 3 of the RTI application is interrogative and is not specific.
d) The queries raised vide point no. 4 of the RTI application is vague and is not specific."
When asked by the Commission, how the identity of the competent authority and bank's policies as sought on point no. 3 and 4 of the RTI application can be denied u/s 2 (f) of the RTI Act, the respondent could not give proper justification. The respondent during hearing submitted that they will provide the information sought to the appellant, in their revised reply.
Decision:
In the light of the above facts, the respondent is directed to provide revised reply to the appellant, as submitted during hearing, within three weeks after receipt of this order. With this direction, the appeal is disposed.
Sd (Surendra Singh Meena) (सुरेंद्र ससिंह मीना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) निनां क/Date: 01.04.2026 CIC/BKOBD/A/2025/607296 Page 5 of 6 Authenticated true copy Ramesh Babu Krishnan (रमेश बाबू कृष्णन) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:
1. Mohit Kakkar
2. The CPIO Bank of Baroda, Head Office - Operations & Services Department, Baroda Bhavan, 7th Floor, R C Dutt Road, Alkapuri, Baroda- 390007 CIC/BKOBD/A/2025/607296 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)