Central Information Commission
Pankaj Kumar vs Bank Of India on 2 December, 2019
Author: Suresh Chandra
Bench: Suresh Chandra
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No CIC/BKOIN/A/2017/607629
Pankaj Kumar ...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Bank of India,
Adampur Chowk,
Bhagalpur, Bihar.
... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 29.08.2017 FA : Dated Nil SA : 07.11.2017
CPIO : No reply FAO : 14.11.2017 Hearing : 19.11.2019
ORDER
(27.11.2019)
1. The issues under consideration is the complaint of non-compliance of CIC's orders dated 23.05.2019 in the matter.
2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the complainant filed an application dated 29.08.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO),Bank of India, Adampur Chowk, Bhagalpur, Bihar, seeking certain information. The CPIO did not give any reply. Aggrieved by this, the complainant filed a first appeal dated nil. The FAA disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 14.11.2017. Aggrieved by this, the complainant filed a Second Appeal dated 07.11.2017 before this Commission which was heard by this Commission on 21.05.2019 and inter alia, the following directions were passed:( 23.05.2019) "5.3. The Commission feels that the appellant through his RTI application did not demand any kind of action against errant officials. The objective of the RTI is not to hold an individual's action wrong or right but the object is to obtain information as it is. The Commission feels that the reply given by the respondent is evasive and perfunctory. They should have given the information as it was. It appears that one individual Mr. Yash Kumar filed RTI application using official email of the respondent bank to seek information from the appellant's office. If it is so then it is the responsibility of the respondent to admit or deny as to whether it is within their knowledge or not. They have not specifically denied as to whether they have authorized any of their employee to seek somebody's personal information from the employer of the appellant.
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, directs the respondent to re-visit the RTI application and furnish information sought by the appellant. If there is any inquiry conducted by the respondent a copy thereof may also be made available to the appellant within ten days of receipt of this order. The respondent is advised to be more cautious in future while dealing with RTI applications. With these observations and directions the appeal is disposed of."
3. The complainant has filed the instant non-compliance complaint dated 17.06.2019 inter alia on the grounds that the CPIO had not complied with the directions of the Commission passed on 23.05.2019.
4. The CPIO replied that they had complied with the directions of the Commission and furnished information vide letter dated 19.06.2019. Hearing on 19.11.2019:
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Rajiv Sinha, Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Bhagalpur, attended the hearing through video conference.
5.1. The appellant submitted that the respondent had not complied with the directions of the Commission completely. The respondent had only provided the incomplete investigation report but had not replied to the queries raised in the RTI application.
5.2. The respondent argued that they had given the findings of the investigation report as per which they concluded that Mr. Yash Kumar could not have filed the RTI application as alleged by the appellant. The findings having been given ,they did not provide para-wise reply to the appellant.
6. The Commission, after adverting to the facts and considerations of the case, perusal of records and hearing both the parties, feels that the respondent has not complied with the order of the Commission nor re-visited the RTI application. The respondent has only compiled with the 2nd portion of the direction i.e. to provide an inquiry report. The CPIO was not present on the date of hearing and the representatives were not able to properly present the case. In view of this, the Registry of this bench is directed to issue show cause notice to Shri Nabaroon Chatterjee, present CPIO, as to why a maximum penalty may not be imposed upon him for not complying with directions of the Commission and for not appearing before the Commission. The Written submissions must reach this Commission within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The CPIO is also directed to furnish complete information as per directions of the order dated 23.05.2019.
SD/-
Suresh Chandra (सुरेशचं ाा)) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) दनांक/ Date:27.11.2019 Authenticated true copy (अिध मािणत स य ित) R. Sitarama Murthy(आर. सीताराम मू त) Deputy Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Address of the parties:
CPIO :
1. BANK OF INDIA ADAMPUR CHOWK, BHAGALPUR, BIHAR - 812 001 PANKAJ KUMAR