Iqbal Singh Gumber vs Bank Of Baroda on 19 June, 2019

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Iqbal Singh Gumber vs Bank Of Baroda on 19 June, 2019

1. The issues under consideration i.e. the reliefs sought by the complainant in his complaint dated 24.11.2017 due to alleged non-supply of information vide his RTI application dated 28.08.2017, are as under -:

(i) To take appropriate action against the erring official of the bank.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the complainant filed an RTI application dated 28.08.2017, under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the CPIO, Bank of Baroda, Ballard Pier, Mumbai inter alia sought the following information:-

Page 1 of 6 Page 2 of 6 Page 3 of 6

The CPIO replied on 28.09.2017. Aggrieved by this, the complainant filed first appeal before the first appellate authority on 12.10.2017. The FAA dispose of the appeal vide order dated 08.11.2017. Aggrieved with this, complaint dated 24.11.2017, before this Commission.

Page 4 of 6

3. The complainant has filed a complaint dated 24.11.2017 inter alia on the ground that he is not satisfied with the reply given by the CPIO. He also stated that he has given ample proof of wrong doings of senior officials of the bank but the respondent bank failed to resolve the matter.

4. The CPIO replied on 28.09.2017 and gave point wise reply. The FAA vide order dated 08.11.2017 upheld the CPIO's reply.

5. The complainant and Shri Pattanayak, PIO & DGM along with Shri A.K. Garg, AGM, Bank of Baroda, Bandra (respondent )attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The Complainant submitted that he was independent Director of Spanco Limited for around three months in the year 2013 and he resigned 06.03.2013. Thereafter, he gave public notice on 12.05.2014 when the Company did not file form 32 of his resignation. He argued that he never took any payment from the Company, never participated in any discussion or decision making, never knew how the respondent bank and other banks financed them and never signed any paper or cheque. The complainant alleged that the respondent bank had written many letters for recovery of due considering him as a Director of the said company. The complainant also asked the respondent about the independent director provision in RBI Master Circular on willful defaulters no. RBI/2015- 16/100/DBR no.CID.BC.20/20.16.003/2015-16 dated 1st July 2015 addressed to all scheduled Banks. But the respondent did not care to understand anything, then he filed this RTI application seeking aforesaid information in order to prove in the court.

Page 5 of 6

5.2. The Respondent inter alia submitted, that they had furnished point-wise reply to the complainant. They also stated that they were not aware of the facts submitted by the complainant. Subsequently they assured the Commission that they would revisit the RTI application and provide a suitable reply to the complainant.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, feels that reply given by the CPIO is evasive. Hence, the respondent is advised to provide a revised point -wise reply to the RTI application as assured by them within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly the complaint is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

Suresh Chandra (सुरेश चं ाा)) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/ Date: 19.06.2019 Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission