V. V. S. N. Raju Chiranjeevi vs State Bank Of India on 12 October, 2021

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

V. V. S. N. Raju Chiranjeevi vs State Bank Of India on 12 October, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 15.04.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 07.12.2018 and first appeal dated 14.01.2019:-

(i) Guidelines regarding Pre sanction/post sanction/Pre disbursement inspections/Documentation/RMOTD/ original title deeds/documents execution register and other related documentation work done by the branches which were linked to the RSMECCC, Chennai (e State Bank of Mysore) during 2015- Page 1 of 5

2016 for released/disbursed the housing loans and subsequent disbursements/installments of housing loans. And forwarded the documents to the RSMECCC for further maintenance.

(ii) Guide lines for margin money for releasing the housing loans (ESBM).

(iii) Duties/Roles/Responsibilities of Maintenance officers in RASMECCC, Chennai (Esbm).

(iv) The number of branches effected by the fraud committed by M/s Shreepavi constructions in sanctioning of housing loans for purchase of flats in their projects. Number of employees charge sheeted and punishment awarded to the Staff involved in SOURCING/ PROCESSING/ SANCTION/ DISBURSEMENT/ PRE AND POST SANCTION/PRE-DISBURSEMENT INSPECTION PROCESS.

(v) Protection available to the employee who is a whistle blower under the whistle blower policy of the bank.

(vi) Advise the date of receipt of his whistle blower mail communication and disclosure under whistle blower policy letter sent through the speed post handed over by e State Bank of Mysore to SBI.

(vii) The date of show cause notice sent to me in this related fraud.

(viii) The date on which the Disciplinary Authority taken a decision to initiate Disciplinary proceedings against me and decision communicated to him and copy of acknowledgement receipt from him for the communication.

(ix) Time limit for deciding on appeal in DPD cases from the date of appeal letter for reviewing the order of Disciplinary Authority when new evidences brought out at appeal stage by the Charge Sheeted officer.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 07.12.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Page 2 of 5 Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Chennai, seeking aforesaid information. Dissatisfied with non-receipt of any information, the appellant filed first appeal dated 14.01.2019. Subsequently, the CPIO vide letter dated 25.01.2019 replied to the appellant. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 29.01.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 15.04.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 15.04.2019 inter alia on the grounds that he had reported housing loan fraud to the AGM Vigilance and the respondent refused to provide the information. 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 25.01.2019 that the queries raised by the appellant were related to e-SBM policy matters, the particulars were available with them updated till the year 2011; however, information for the period 2015-2016 were not available; queries were not related to their Branch. The FAA advised the CPIO to respond to RTI applications in a timely manner as prescribed under the RTI Act.

Hearing on 10.06.2021 4.1. The appellant attended the hearing through audio conference and the respondent remained absent despite notice.

4.2. The Commission has passed the following observations and directions on 20.07.2021 "6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the appellant and perusal of records, observed that the respondent could not be contacted during the hearing. In absence of the respondent, the reasons for not furnishing the complete information could not be ascertained. That being so, principles of natural justice demand that the matter be adjourned. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned."

Page 3 of 5

Hearing on 03.09.2021

5. The appellant attended the hearing through video conference and the respondent remained absent despite notice.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he was an officer of State Bank of Mysore (merged with SBI on 01.04.2017). The appellant further submitted that he had exposed a fraud in sanctioning of loan to M/s Shreepavi Constructions to the tune of Rs. 20 Crores. He stated that he informed about the fraud through his personal mail to the AGM Vigilance under whistle blower policy and also by speed post to the AGM, Vigilance, Head Office, Bangalore (disclosure under whistle blower policy) during May 2016, after the merger of State Bank of Mysore with State Bank of India. Thereafter, the SBI had filed FIR with CBI, ACB, Chennai during December 2017. The appellant argued that the CBI had no information regarding his whistle blowing and they had added his name during the enquiry in this case. Hence, being a whistle blower and affected party, he sought aforesaid information from the respondent but the same was not provided till the date of hearing.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the appellant and perusal of records, observed that the respondent vide letter dated 03.09.2021 provided revised reply but the same was incomplete and evasive. Since the respondent was not present in the hearing to the second consecutive time without seeking leave of the Commission and in the absence of the respondent proper facts of the case could not be ascertained. Hence, Shri Anand Raj, the then CPIO and Shri Guruswamy. V, the present CPIO/AGM are show caused as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against each of them. The present CPIO is given a responsibility to serve a copy of this order as well as show cause notice to the then CPIO and secure his written explanations. All the written explanations (from both the CPIOs) must reach the Commission within three weeks. Meanwhile, the respondent is directed to Page 4 of 5 provide proper revised information/reply to the appellant, within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 12.10.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत ) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO:

STATE BANK OF INDIA RETAIL ASSETS CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE OMR, NEW No. 4/952 & 4/952A, 3RD FLOOR, RAJIV GANDHI SALAI, PERUNGUDI, CHENNAI -600 096 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, GENERAL MANAGER (NW-1), STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, NUNGAMBAKKAM,CHENNAI - 600 006 V. V. S. N. RAJU CHIRANJEEVI Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission