Central Information Commission
Ashok Soni vs Bank Of Baroda on 10 May, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2023/604602
Ashok Soni ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Bank of Baroda, Sawai
Madhopur ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 10.08.2022 FA : 30.09.2022 SA : 23.01.2023
CPIO : 08.09.2022 &
FAO : 26.10.2022 Hearing : 08.05.2024
10.11.2022
Date of Decision: 09.05.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.08.2022 seeking information regarding a complaint letter dated 06.11.2021 on the following points:
(i) An acknowledged copy of this particular letter (letter no. 14 dated 06.11.2021) along with all the supporting documents, sent by me in authority of Branch Head, Bank of Baroda, Palai.
(ii) Name and EC no. of the enquiry official.
(iii) status of inquiry conducted in this matter - completed/pending.
Page 1 of 7
(iv) Copy of letters submitted by inquiry officer, to extend the time period for the
inquiry.
(v) Copy of letters issued by competent authority related to extension of period for
the inquiry. Etc.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 08.09.2022 and the same is reproduced as under
:-
"We refer to your application received in our office on 10-08-2022 in which you have sought information regarding complaint made by Branch Head Palai. In this regard we would like to inform you that we have received a letter from palai branch dated 06/11/2021 and the said document is bank's internal document, so we are unable to provide you the same. Also the remaining information sought by you has already been provided to you vide RTI letter no. SWM/RO/RTI/2021-2022/42 dated 09.02.2022 Further, in the case of "Mohan Lal Atwal, Central Public Information Officer/Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya" in File No.CIC/KVSAN/A/2018/139672, Hon'ble Central Information. Commission while dealing with the issue of RTI Application filed by an employee of an organization inter-alia has held that misuse of RTI Act by filing multiple RTI applications repeatedly is nothing short of an abuse of the process of law and an attempt to virtually intimidate/harass his colleagues and the officers of the institution, where the Appellant works.
We hope that you will be satisfied with our reply. In case you are not satisfied you can appeal on the below mentioned address within 30 days of receipt of this reply:"
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.09.2022. The FAA vide order dated 26.10.2022 directed the respondent to revisit the RTI application and provide information to the appellant as provision of RTI Act, 2005.Page 2 of 7
4. The CPIO while complying with the FA order vide letter dated 10.11.2022 stated as under:
"We refer to First Appeal order dated 20.10.2022 which we received on 26-10-2022, wherein the First Appellate Authority has directed us to revisit the RTI application Dated 10.08.2022 wherein you have sought information regarding complaint made by you in the capacity of Branch Head Palai. In this regard we would like to inform you that we have received a letter of complaint from palai branch dated 06/11/2021 and the said letter being bank's internal document the same is not being provided to you as per section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Also the remaining information sought by you has already been provided to you vide RTI letter no. SWM/RO/RTI/2021-2022/42 dated 09.02.2022.
5. Aggrieved with the compliance of FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 23.01.2023.
6. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Moazzam Masood, DRM attended the hearing through video conference.
7. The appellant inter alia submitted that in compliance of FAA's order, no information had been provided by the CPIO. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to furnish the information, as sought.
8. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that a response to the RTI application in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the appellant vide their letter dated 08.09.2022 and in compliance of FAA's order, vide letter dated 10.11.2022. He stated that the information sought was also related to third-party, disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest. Accordingly, they claimed exemption under section 8 (1) (d) & (j) of the RTI Act. A relevant para of the respondent written submission is reproduced as under-:
"In the above-mentioned matter, we have received your letter dated 22.04.2024 received on 29.04.2024, it is submitted that under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the hearing of Mr. Ashok Soni appeal (file number CIC/BKOBD/A/2023/604602) is Page 3 of 7 scheduled for 08.05.2024. In this regard, we are presenting before you written submissions for hearing which are as follows:-
1) Some information was sought by the applicant through his application dated 10.08.2022, which was answered through our letter number SWM/RO/RTI/2022-
23/31 dated 08.09.2022. In the first RTI application, the applicant sought information regarding a complaint made by Mr. Ashok Soni there then the branch head of the Bank of Baroda Palai Branch dated 06.11.2021 related to misuse of bank Accounts/ cash/assets, etc, in this matter, on instructions of Regional Manager, Sawai Madhopur, an inquiry was held. Kindly provide 1.An acknowledged copy of this particular letter (letter no. 14 dated 06.11.2021) along with all the supporting documents, sent by me in the authority of the Branch Head, Bank of Baroda, Palai.
2. Name and ECno. of the inquiry official, 3. status of inquiry conducted in this matter- completed/pending 4. Copy of letters submitted by inquiry officer, to extend the time period for the inquiry, 5. Copy of letters issued by competent authority related to the extension of the period for the inquiry. 6. A copy of the inquiry report along with all the supporting documents. submitted by the inquiry official. 7. Copy of all letters relateddepartmental action, taken in this matter. 8. A copy of the document, stating the decision taken on this inquiry report by Regional Manager, Sawai Madhopur Which was replied to by our letter no SWM/RO/RTI/2022-23/31 dated 08.09.2022.
2) On 30.09.2022, an appeal was submitted by the applicant before the First Appellate Authority that the said information was not provided to the applicant by the Public Information Officer, to which the First Appellate Authority gave this reply to the applicant vide reply dated 20.10.2022, that, "Please refer to your RTI First Appeal dated 30.09.2022, received in this office through the online portal, which has been filed against the Order No. 31 dated 08.09.2022 passed by PIO Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, Sawai Madhopur Page 4 of 7 In your RTI Application dated 10.08.2022, you had sought certain information regarding the complaint made by you in the capacity of Branch Head, Bank's Palai Branch, Sawai Madhopur.
In reply to your RTI Application dated 10.08.2022, the PIO Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, Sawai Madhopur by virtue of Order No. 31 dated 08.09.2022 had refused to provide the information requested since the document sought was Bank's internal document. Further, the PIO had informed you that the information sought was already provided to you earlier via Reply Letter No. SWM/RO/RTI/2021-22/42 dated 09.022022 In the instant appeal, you have requested for the desired information to be provided Since the reply of the PIO did not contain any specific ground for exemption for disclosure, in this regard, the PIO is directed to revisit the RTI Application dated 10.08.2022 on merits as per the provisions of the RTI Act and dispose of the said application within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly. your subject appeal under the RTI Act 2005 is disposed of. If you are not satisfied with the subject decision you may prefer to appeal within 90 days from the date of this order before the Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi 110 067.
3) On receiving copy of the order dated 20.10.2022, from the first appellant authority then PIO provided the requsit information to the applicant vide reply SWM/RO/RTI/2022- 23/33 dated 10.11.2022. that, "We refer to the First Appeal order dated 20.10.2022 which we received on 26-10-2022, where the First Appellate Authority has directed us to revisit the RTI application Dated 10.08.2022 wherein you have sought information regarding complaint made by you in the capacity of Branch Head Palai. In this regard, we would like to inform you that we have received a letter of complaint from the Palai branch dated 06/11/2021 and the said letter being bank's internal document the same is not being provided to you as per section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Also, the remaining information sought by you has already been provided to you vide RTI letter dated 09.02.2022.
Page 5 of 74) Further, we relied upon the said document i.e. as it contains, the personal information of a third party, Further, no larger public interest has been disclosed by the appellant.
5) Further, for point no 1, we relied upon RTI sections 8(1)(d) and for points no 2, 3, 4,5,6, 7 & 8. we relied upon RTI sections 8(1)(J), 8(1)(d), and 8(1) (h) that sought information related to administrative guidelines the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Therefore, we express our inability to provide the said information on the ground that such information is commercial confidence & information which would impede the process of investigation and the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and the same is exempted as per Section 8(1) (d) & 8(1) (h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
6) Further, the PIO has relied upon the Order of Hon'ble CIC in the case of "Mohan Lal Atwal Central Public Information Officer/Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya" in File No. CIC/KVSAN/A/2018/13967 wherein Hon'ble Central Information Commission while dealing with the issue of an RTI Application filed by an employee of an organization inter-alia has held that misuse of the RTI Act by filing multiple RTI applications repeatedly is nothing short of an abuse of the process of law and an attempt to virtually intimidate/ harass his colleagues and the officers of the institution, where the Appellant works. Hence, if the required information is already provided to a bank employee in his capacity, then it is clear that the document is not a public document. Further, the said information, which he tried to get is already available to him. Further, regarding the internal notings/documents, they may be available in the fiduciary capacity and exempted from disclosure uls 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005.
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act vide letters dated Page 6 of 7 08.09.2022 and 10.11.2022. The Commission notes that the information sought on point no. 3 does not attract any exemption clause of the RTI Act as the appellant has sought status of inquiry conducted in the matter which should be provided to him. Therefore, the Commission directs the respondent to re-visit point no. 3 of the RTI application and provide a revised reply to the appellant stating present status of the inquiry conducted in the matter, within 10 days from the date of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. With these observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 09.05.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड ))
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO (Under RTI Act)
Bank Of Baroda Regional Office,
Vatsalay Hospital Ke Upar,
Mantown, Sawai Madhopur - 322001
2. Ashok Soni
Page 7 of 7
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)