Central Information Commission
Mr Gv Malwad And Mr Vn Malwad vs State Bank Of India on 24 June, 2024
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/628931+
CIC/SBIND/A/2023/610735
CIC/SBIND/A/2023/610730
Mr. GV Malwad and Mr. VN Malwad ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: State Bank of India,
Mumbai ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeals:
Sl. No. Second Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of
Appeal RTI CPIO's First FAA's Second
No. Application Reply Appeal Order Appeal
1 628931 26.02.2023 20.03.2023 & 28.04.2023 23.05.2023 13.06.2023
24.03.2023
2 610735 04.12.2022 30.12.2022 05.01.2023 30.01.2023 26.02.2023
3 610730 04.12.2022 30.12.2022 05.01.2023 31.01.2023 26.02.2023
The instant set of appeals have been clubbed for decision as these relate to the same
similar subject matter.
Date of Hearing: 18.06.2024
Date of Decision: 21.06.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
Page 1 of 11
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/628931
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.02.2023 seeking the following information:
We rely on pointing out that the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), to which India is a signatory, required a legal framework for asset declarations of government officials, Rama Nath Jha, executive director of Transparency International India, says, "Compulsory disclosure of assets by government employees is not a violation of individual privacy since there is a direct link between the income/salary and the assets declared."
No SBI officer could deny SBI Service Rules 1992 neither Lokpal and Lokayukta Act 2013, Public Records Act 1993 nor deny all Acts, Rules which warrants compulsory disclosure of assets. That means no SBI officer could uphold the Official Secrets Act 1923. Reason? Compulsory disclosure of assets of bank officer shows he is a man having exceptional impeccable integrity in case not, warrants his disclosure of assets every year with Vigilance Office. Even not disclosing year wise is itself non- disciplinary misbehavior, hence, punishable.
The details which we have sought in below points about them are also the same details voluntarily declared by Hon'ble President, Prime Minister, CJI & even the Hon'ble Election Commission made it compulsory for public representatives like MPs, MLAs to declare their assets & liabilities before contesting elections then if the people holding such high level positions in the country have declared voluntarily their assets then we have a concern of general public importance whether these six bank officers are well above all such three people who are holding countries most respected, dignified, admirable & acclaimed positions? Nonetheless, even all Information Commissioner's working at CIC Delhi has 'suo motu' declared their assets on CIC website.
Six SBI officers namely, CPIOs Mr. Mukesh Kumar Dhama & Mr. Shashi Bhushan Chaudhary, in RTI No. 236 and FAA, Mr. Muralidharan S. CGM (Operations) & Page 2 of 11 Mr. Samden Tshering Lama in FA No. 236. CPIO Dr Abhay R Ljardar LHO BKC in RTI No. 237 and FAA Mr. Jogendra Pal Singh, GM Network I, LHO BKC in FA No. 237 are guilty of protecting "illegal assets" hold by their Chairman, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Khara and his lawyer Adv Ruturaj C. Patil. They gave us a clue that these men are working in "com" dangerous for the survival of Democracy and looting of public funds as their behavior is in violation of Nolan Principles 1993, The Seven Principles of Public Life.
(i) Therefore, request you to provide all six officers English language skills certification before getting job with the SBI.
(ii) To provide information available with SBI indicating all six officers service records book copy as per Public Records Act 1993 including but not limited to employee ID, details about language proficiency, date of joining, details of different posts held at different offices with roles & responsibilities, year-wise, details of promotions, till today and date of retirement, temporary residential address, and permanent address etc.
(iii) Details of remarkable and/or outstanding contribution to SBI and/or to public, and/or details of any accolades they received, till today.
(iv) Details of documents like resume or biodata or curricular vitae on that basis they secured a job in the SBI.
(v) Details of any recommendations they had before joining or post joining. ...etc. 1.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 20.03.2023 and the same is reproduced as under
:-
"Point (i) to (v) - As part of the information sought by you is related to the area of operation of the undernoted CPIO, your application has been transferred to him/her on 01 .03.2023 for replying to you directly in the matter. CPIO & Assistant General Manager (P & E), State Bank of India, Local Head Office, (Maharashtra Circle), SYNERGY, C-6, G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051.Page 3 of 11
The CPIO and Deputy General Manager (PM & PPG), State Bank of India, Corporate Centre, 16TH Floor, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400021. ...etc. In this connection the concerned respondent has replied to the applicant vide letter dated 24.03.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:
"Point (i) - What you have sought is not an information as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Point (ii) to (v) - The information sought relates to third party personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any Public Activity or interest & hence exempted from disclosure u/s 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005."
1.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.04.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 23.05.2023 upheld the reply of CPIO.
1.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 13.06.2023.
Second Appeal no. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/610735
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.12.2022 seeking the following information:
Adv Ruturaj C. Patil is on the payroll of SBI, hence, becomes public servant under IPC 21. Under the garb of helping SBI bank officers to recover Education Loan, people from our village "Martya and his three sons" in "quid pro quo" siphoned many loans "mortgage free" and or probably in the name of dead persons to set up Schools, colleges, hospitals and co-operative banks. As far as media reports to believe four Relatives of -Adv Uddav Momale, Adv Avinash Irpatgire -who are the main accused in Rs 80,000cr Irrigation scam are also the four Directors in M/s Piyush Infratech Pvt Ltd & M/s Venkatesh Developers also bought one sugar factory in Dist.-Ahmednagar from the same funds received via Adv Prakash Paithankar, Page 4 of 11 SBI banks lawyer who lobbied with Regional Officers, Aurangabad and LHO BKC Mumbai. And now, next lawyer hired is Adv Ruturaj C. Patil to act on RC fraudulently obtained from DRT Aurangabad.......... but SBI Chairman has no knowledge? And how? Instigate the matter and keep earning by blackmailing ignorant SBI bank officers.
In a state of Democracy, no one has inherent power to raise fingers on others. As the slogan goes "every right is derived from the first duty to be performed". And this comes first to be performed by Advocate who has been regarded as the most privileged member of the society as per BCI Preamble. But before any public figure like Advocate raise fingers on other ordinary citizens, they must prove their exceptional impeccable integrity which he did not before filing cases at DRT Aurangabad as RTI No. 225 filed to his Bar Council to seek his details of compliance of BCI Rules, no information provided even after statutory timeline of 30 days over shows something "fishy".
For any Advocate holding COP and being enrolled on Advocate Roll of Hon'ble Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) at Bombay it is necessary to do compliance of BCI Rule 49, Rule 52 Section VII- Restrictions on Other Employments before working for any company or body corporate like SBI. If not, makes all cases filed by him or pleaded by him at DRT abinitio illegal null and void in the eyes of law, being filed without having authority to do so as he exceeded his jurisdiction, traveling beyond the scope of his jurisdiction acted in bad faith with good faith violation and suffers from the "Doctrine of illegality at source" amongst many other Doctrines. And becomes a case of professional misconduct to be placed under trial u/s 35, Advocate Act 1961.
(i) Therefore, request you to provide his English language skills certification before getting job with the SBI as Pleader or In-house Panel Advocate.Page 5 of 11
(ii) To provide information available with SBI indicating his service records book copy as per Public Records Act 1993 including but not limited to his employee ID, details about his language proficiency, date of joining, details of different posts held at different offices with roles & responsibilities, year-wise, details of promotions, till today and date of retirement, temporary residential address, and permanent address etc.
(iii) Details of remarkable and/or outstanding contribution to SBI and/or to public, and/or details of any accolades he received, till today.
(iv) Details of documents like resume or biodata or curricular vitae on that basis he secured a job in the SBI.
(v) Details of any recommendations he had before joining or post joining. ...etc. 2.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 30.12.2022 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"No employee namely Adv. Ruturaj C Patil is on the payroll of SBI."
2.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.01.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 30.01.2023 upheld the reply of CPIO.
2.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 26.02.2023.
Second Appeal no. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/610730
3. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.12.2022 seeking the following information:
We rely on pointing out that the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), to which India is a signatory, required a legal framework for asset declarations of government officials, Rama Nath Jha, executive director of Page 6 of 11 Transparency International India, says, "Compulsory disclosure of assets by government employees is not a violation of individual privacy since there is a direct link between the income/salary and the assets declared."
No SBI officer could deny SBI Service Rules 1992 neither Lokpal and Lokayukta Act 2013, Public Records Act 1993 nor deny all Acts, Rules which warrants compulsory disclosure of assets. That means no SBI officer could uphold the Official Secrets Act 1923. Reason? Compulsory disclosure of assets of bank officer shows he is a man having exceptional impeccable integrity in case not, warrants his disclosure of assets every year with Vigilance Office. Even not disclosing year wise is itself non- disciplinary misbehavior, hence, punishable.
The details which we have sought in below points about him are also the same details voluntarily declared by Hon'ble President, Prime Minister, CJI & even the Hon'ble Election Commission made it compulsory for public representatives like MPs, MLAs to declare their assets & liabilities before contesting elections then if the people holding such high level positions in the country have declared voluntarily their assets then we have a concern of general public importance whether bank officer like Mr. Dinesh Kumar Khara are well above all such three people who are holding countries most respected, dignified, admirable & acclaimed positions? Nonetheless, even all Information Commissioner's working at CIC Delhi have 'suo motu' declared their assets on CIC website.
Under the garb of helping SBI bank officers to recover Education Loan, people from our village "Martya and his three sons" in "quid pro quo" siphoned many loans "mortgage free" and or probably in the name of dead persons to set up Schools, colleges, hospitals and co-operative banks. As far as media reports to believe four Relatives of -Adv Uddav Momale, Adv Avinash Irpatgire -who are the main accused in Rs 80,000cr Irrigation scam are also the four Directors in M/s Piyush Infratech Pvt Ltd & M/s Venkatesh Developers also bought one sugar factory in Dist.-
Page 7 of 11Ahmednagar from the same funds received via Adv Prakash Paithankar, SBI banks lawyer who lobbied with Regional Officers, Aurangabad and LHO BKC Mumbai. And now, next lawyer hired is Adv Ruturaj C. Patil to act on RC fraudulently obtained from DRT Aurangabad.......... but Chairman has no knowledge? And how? Instigate the matter and keep earning by blackmailing ignorant SBI bank officers.
(i) Therefore, request you to provide his English language skills certification before getting job with the SBI as Probationary Officer in 1984.
(ii) To provide information available with SBI indicating his service records book copy as per Public Records Act 1993 including but not limited to his employee ID, details about his language proficiency, date of joining, details of different posts held at different offices with roles & responsibilities, year-wise, details of promotions, till today and date of retirement, temporary residential address, and permanent address etc.
(iii) Details of remarkable and/or outstanding contribution to SBI and/or to public, and/or details of any accolades he received, till today.
(iv) Details of documents like resume or biodata or curricular vitae on that basis he secured a job in the SBI.
(v) Details of any recommendations he had before joining or post joining. ...etc. 3.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 30.12.2022 and the same is reproduced as under
:-
"Point (i) to (iv) - The information sought is third party information held by the bank in fiduciary capacity and exempted from disclosure u/s 8 (1) (e) & (j) of the RRTI Act, 2005.
Point (v) - The query raised is vague, not specific and roving in nature, however no such information is available/held with this public authority." ...etc. Page 8 of 11 3.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.01.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 31.01.2023 upheld the reply of CPIO.
3.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 26.02.2023.
Hearing proceedings and Decision
5. The appellant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Naveen Kumar, DGM and Mr. Sourav Gosh, DGM, in file no. (CIC/SBIND/A/2023/628931), Mr. Vijay Matte, CPIO, for file no. (CIC/SBIND/A/2023/610735), Mr. Shashi Bhushan, DGM, and Mr. Naveen Kumar, DGM, (CIC/SBIND/A/2023/610730), attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The respondents while defending their cases inter alia submitted that appropriate replies were given to the appellant vide letters dated 20.03.2023, 24.03.2023 and 30.12.2022.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondents and perusal of records, prima facie observes that the RTI application has been filed by two appellants i.e. G. V. Malwad & V. N. Malwad which is not permissible under the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the instant appeal is not maintainable as the RTI application is not filed as per section 3 of the RTI Act. The Commission would like to refer to a decision dated 16.02.2024 in file no. CIC/DSELI/A/2022/665666, wherein similar issue had been decided. The relevant para is reproduced as under:-
"The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of records, observed that the instant appeals are not maintainable owing to the fact that the RTI Applications under reference were not filed as per Section 3 of the RTI Act, Section 3 of the RTI Act which stipulates that all citizens shall have the right to information, confers such right on a distinct individual who is a citizen of India. In the instant case, the RTI applications, the First Appeals and the subsequent Page 9 of 11 second appeals, all have been filed collectively by two citizens, G. V. Malwad & V. N. Malwad and therefore, the RTI applications, first appeals and second appeals, not being filed in individual capacity, are not maintainable."
8. The issues decided in the above case is squarely applicable in this case also.
9. The Appeals are therefore treated as infructuous.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंिी रामललंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक/Date: 21.06.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कनगल एस एस निकारा, (ररटायर्ग)) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO (Under RTI Act) State Bank of India, Right to Information Dept., Corporate Centre, 6th Floor, State Bank Bhavan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021
2. CPIO (Under RTI Act) Policy & Pensioner Department Management, Department Corporate Centre, SBI, 16th Floor, Post Box No - 12, Mumbai - 400021
3. CPIO (Under RTI Act) State Bank of India, Maharashtra Circle, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 4000051 Page 10 of 11
4. CPIO (Under RTI Act) DGM RTI, SBI Corporate Centre, 9th Floor, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Mumbai - 400021
5. Mr. GV Malwad and Mr. VN Malwad Page 11 of 11 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)