Anuj Jain vs Small Industries Development Bank Of ... on 23 November, 2022

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Anuj Jain vs Small Industries Development Bank Of ... on 23 November, 2022

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated Nil include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 16.06.2020 and first appeal dated 21.07.2020:-

(i) Copy of complete PAR report of Shri Anuj Jain, AGM for the period from 2009 to 2019 with comments of reporting and reviewing officer along with score.

(ii) Information on punishment or award if any to the undersigned during 2009 to 2019.

(iii) Copy of Personal Promotion policy applicable in SIDBI.

Page 1 of 3

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 16.06.2020 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Small Industries Development Bank of India, Lucknow, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 15.07.2020 replied to the appellant. Aggrievedby the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 21.07.2020. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 20.08.2020 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated Nil before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated Nil inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission 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 15.07.2020 and the same is reproduced as under:-

"i) The of the APARs are attached herewith.

       ii)     Nil

       iii)    A copy of the same is attached herewith for your reference."

The FAA vide order dated 20.08.2020 do not find any infirmity in the order of CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Sanjay Jain, CPIO, SIDBI, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent provided partial information i.e. marks secured in APAR instead of the copy of APAR. Although, the respondent replied that the copy of APAR was enclosed along with their reply, there were no enclosures attached to the same.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had provided the marks secured in APAR to the appellant.

Page 2 of 3

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the reply given by the respondent was incomplete. It may be noted that an employee was entitled to his/her APAR and the respondent had only informed the marks instead of copy of APAR. In view of the above, the respondent is directed that the APAR be made available to the appellant within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With these observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक/Date: 21.11.2022 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत#) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

The CPIO Small Industries Development Bank of India, Head Office, SIDBI Tower, 15, Ashok Marg, Lucknow-226001 First Appellate Authority Small Industries Development Bank of India SWAVALAMBAN BHAVAN, Plot No.C-11, 'G' Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 Shri Anuj Jain, Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission