Gagan Deep Jaiswal vs Union Bank Of India on 30 June, 2022

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Gagan Deep Jaiswal vs Union Bank Of India on 30 June, 2022

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 16.05.2020 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 05.04.2020 and first appeal dated 26.04.2020:-

Refer the CVC complaint #150812/2020/vigilance-3 which was forwarded to CVO office corporation bank for necessary scrutinization/investigation and action. As per the information available on CVC portal, status of action taken on the said complaint to be obtained from CVO, corporation bank. Therefore, provide the below requested information:-

(i) Provide the copy of the scrutinization /investigation report prepared on his complaint #150812/2020/vigilance-3.

Page 1 of 4

(ii) Provide the copy of action taken on basis the scrutinization done on his Complaint.

(iii) Provide the copy vigilance team investigation report as requested in Point#4 of his complaint# 150812/2020/vigilance-3.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 05.04.2020 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Corporation Bank), Mangalore, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 20.04.2020 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 26.04.2020. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 12.05.2020 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 16.05.2020 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 16.05.2020 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 20.04.2020 and the same is reproduced as under:-

(i) "We would like to inform you that since you have sought for the internal investigation documents the same is treated as confidential and privileged documents which cannot be furnished to you.

(ii) The complaint made relates to you wife and the investigation is carried on pertaining to your wife, hence the information sought by you is treated as third party information and furnishing such information is exempt under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.

(iii) It is observed that the information sought by you is in the nature of investigation and query and does not fall within the definition of information as mentioned under section 2(f) of the RTI Act."

The FAA vide order dated 12.05.2020 concurred with the reply given by the CPIO.

Page 2 of 4

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Rahul Nahar, Law Officer, Union Bank of India (erstwhile Corporation Bank), Bandra attended the hearing through video/audio conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had filed a complaint with Central Vigilance Commission regarding a fraud in his mother's account maintained with the erstwhile Corporation Bank. He further stated that when he inquired about the status of his complaint to the CVC, the CVC informed him that the complaint was forwarded to the CVO, Corporation Bank. Further, the CVC, in writing, asked him to get in touch with the bank.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had replied to the CVC regarding the appellant's complaint. However, the communication made with CVC was internal in nature, therefore, the same was not shared with the appellant.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the reply given by the respondent was perfunctory. Perusal of records and submissions made by the parties during the hearing revealed that the complaint filed by the appellant was forwarded from CVC to CVO of Corporation Bank. Further, the respondent during the course of hearing confirmed that they had reported back to the CVC. Therefore, the appellant being the complainant was entitled to know the status and latest report on his complaint. Public interest demands that the information along with communication sent by the bank to the CVC be made available to the appellant within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With these observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

                                                                                  सुरेश चं ा)
                                                               (Suresh Chandra) (सु        ा
                                                                               सूचना आयु )
                                                    Information Commissioner (सू
                                                                     दनांक/Date: 28.06.2022
Authenticated true copy

R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)
                                                                                     Page 3 of 4
 Addresses of the parties:
The CPIO
Assistant General
Manager Union Bank of
India ( Erstwhile Corporation
Bank) Head Office, P.B. No.
88, Mangaladevi Temple Road,
Pandeshwar, Dhakshina Kannada
District, Mangalore -575001

The First Appellate Authority
General Manager
Union Bank of India
( Erstwhile Corporation Bank) Head
Office, P.B. No. 88,
Mangaladevi Temple Road,
Pandeshwar, Dhakshina Kannada District,
Mangalore -575 001

Shri Gagan Deep Jaiswal,




                                          Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission