Choith Ram Goklani vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 28 August, 2023

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Choith Ram Goklani vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 28 August, 2023

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 04.08.2022 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 22.06.2022 and first appeal dated 26.07.2022:-

(i) In the enquiry proceeding dated 21.11.2020 (register page number 21, 22 and

23) conducted by Enquiry Officer Sri V. P. Verma EC 2066 against CSO C. R. Goklani EC 1027 in the premises of Vikas Bhawan Branch of Prayagraj, on the memorandum number HO/12/VIG/CA/OFF/113 dated 27/6/2019, this was officially submitted before the Enquiry Officer by the presenting officer of the case Sri Nirmal Singh EC 12368 that the documents requested on point number (5) (6) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) by the Charged Officer C. R. Goklani is a Privilege Document and cannot be submitted before the Enquiry.

Page 1 of 4

(ii) Provide duly attested copy of each and every official document / circular / rule of the Bank by which any of the documents requested by CSO on point number (5) (6) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) of his letter number BUPGB/Enquiry/2225 dated

02.10.2020, has already been declared by the Bank as Privilege Document of the Bank and as per rule all those documents officially cannot be submitted.

(iii) Provide duly attested copy of each and every official document / circular of the Bank by which complete list documents of the Bank declared as Privilege Document of the Bank was officially circulated among all the offices / Branches of the Bank.

(iv) If in the past, as per the records of the CPIO office, any of the information as requested on the point number (1) (2) (3) of the RTI application has already been provided to the RTI applicant, provide complete detail and copy of that official letter by which information was officially provided.

(v) If as per the reporting of the concerned record keeper of the Bank any of the information requested on the point number (1) (2) (3) (4) of the RTI application actually does not exist on the official record of the Bank, provide duly attested copy of every such reporting.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 22.06.2022 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Baroda U.P. Bank, Gorakhpur, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 20.07.2022 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 26.07.2022. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 01.08.2022 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 04.08.2022 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 04.08.2022 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission Page 2 of 4 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 20.07.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-

(i) To (iii) "As per Section 6 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005, a person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall specify the particulars of the information sought by him or her. Non-specific queries or clarification or interpretation of rules is outside the purview of the Act. The CPIO is not supposed to create information or interpret information.

(iv) & (v) As mentioned in point no. (i) to (iii)."

The FAA vide order dated 01.08.2022 upheld the reply of the CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Mahesh Kumar Jha, Chief Manager, Baroda UP Bank, Sultanpur attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that information sought was not provided by the respondent till the date of hearing.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that information sought by the appellant was not specific. They further submitted that non-specific queries or clarification or interpretation of rules was outside the purview of the RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the respondent replied that information sought by the appellant was non-specific and indefinite. They also stated that the information sought was in the form of clarifications or seeking interpretation which did not fall within the definition of "information" as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. It may not be out of place to mention that the CPIO was not supposed to create information or interpret the Rules under the RTI Act. The respondent inter-alia submitted that the appellant was dealt with departmentally and penalty of Rs. 75,000/- was imposed on him. It was an admitted fact that the penalty was imposed after conducting regular departmental enquiry and after giving the opportunity of fair hearing to the appellant. It may not be out of place to mention that if the appellant was not provided any particular Page 3 of 4 document and hence a fair hearing was not provided, he could have challenged the same before the appropriate forum. The appellant failed to specify the document which was not given or which was sought by him through the RTI application. The appellant may not be allowed to re-open the departmental enquiry under garb of RTI application. There appears to be no infirmity in the reply given by the respondent. That being so, there is no public interest in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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: 28.08.2023
Authenticated true copy

R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)

Addresses of the parties:
The CPIO Baroda UP Bank, 123,
Ishwardas Verma Memorial
Complex, Gora Barik, Amahat,
Lucknow Road, Sultanpur,
UP - 228001

The First Appellate Authority
Baroda U.P.Bank
Buddh Vihar
Commercial Scheme,
New Shivpuri Colony,
Taramandal
Gorakhpur - 273016


Shri Choith Ram Goklani




                                                                                   Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission