Central Information Commission
Roshni Joshi vs United Commercial Bank (Uco) on 31 March, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/UCOBK/A/2020/672922
Roshni Joshi ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
UCO Bank, RTI Cell, HRM
Department, Head Office, 10
BTM Sarani,1st floor, Kolkata-
700001, West Bengal. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 09/01/2023
Date of Decision : 24/03/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16/03/2020
CPIO replied on : 14/04/2020
First appeal filed on : 19/04/2020
First Appellate Authority's order : 30/05/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.03.2020 seeking the following information:
"1. Amount of punishment to the competent authority for suspending any officer without furnishing any reason to her and timeline for such punishment /action.1
2. Amount of punishment to the competent authority for awarding punishment without conducting any inquiry and timeline for such punishment/action.
3. Amount of punishment to the competent authority for disposing off the appeal without conducting any inquiry and timeline for such punishment/action.
4. Detailed explanation and reasons of non credit of ad-hoc salary in the account of Roshni Joshi PF 54686, Mumbai Zone, though after passage of many months.
5. How long will it take for ad-hoc salary to be credited into the account of Roshni A Joshi PF 54686."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 14.04.2020 stating as under:-
"1. For point 1 to 3 please be informed that In respect of non compliance of any guidelines of the Bank, disciplinary action may be initiated by observing the procedures as defined in the UCO Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 as amended and quantum of punishment is to be decided by the Disciplinary Authority in consultation with CVO/CVC, as per the category of the case.
2. For point 4 please be informed that the reasons and explanations are not information as per RTI Act
3. For point 5 please be informed that the query sought is a predictive request regarding the incident based upon occurring of the event in the future. Hence, we understand that it is not information as per RTI Act."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.04.2020 stating as under:
"1.With reference to point no 1 to 3 I did not find any provision of punishment to competent authorities defined in UCO BANK OFFICER Employees (discipline and Appeal) regulation 1976. Kindly guide me with the particular regulations related to violation and such abuse of power, along with the copy of regulations.
2.With reference to point no 4, kindly be noted that the adhoc salary was disbursed for all the employees long bank in September 2019. I have sent plenty of mails for non disbursal of my ad hoc salary but all are in vain and no response to them. I have not received my ad hoc salary till today i.e. 19.04.2020. it has been over seven months now, reason for non release of ad hoc salary, has been mistery to me due to non response from you. It bears considerable amount of financial loss to me inclusive of interest for 7 months on due amount. Kindly provide me with the reason of non credit of my ad hoc salary for as long as seven months 2
3. Kindly let me know the maximum timeline for the credit."
FAA's order dated 30.05.2020, held as under:
"I, being the Appellate Authority, have examined your application and found that your application has already been disposed of by the CPIO on 14.04.2020.
However we reply on point no. 1 to 3:The Competent Authority has the power to suspend any officer, in the larger interest of Bank and to give a fair chance of enquiry, without furnishing any reason and do the enquiry thereafter.
If the officer is found guilty, disciplinary action is initiated otherwise suspension is reinstated.
Reply to query no. 4&5: This is not information u/s 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal stating inter alia as under:
"...As regards to the said RTI, refering to point no 1,2 & 3 no action is being taken on my Complaints & appeals. No punishment to those who abused their powers and suspended me at their whims. Contrary to this, I have been issued chargesheet for alleging them of Corruption. As regards to point no 4&5 under RTI , inspite of my umpteen number of mails, ad-hoc salary of mine has not been credited to my account for as long as over 7 months now. After I filed FIR, my salary was held up though rest of all employees got their one month ad-hoc salary well in time before 7 months from now. I have already asked for reasons for non credit of salary. This is not something, logical reason I am seeking for. When rest of employees have got their salary in time, there must be certain grounds and official documentation for non credit of my salary, based on which they are not disbursing the same. Neither salary is being credited nor grounds are being provided. With reference to point no 5 under RTI, I am not even provided timeline for credit. As my Zonal Manager is still torturing me to DEATH, I am unable to join Office due to he's deliberately offering highly unsafe place of posting. I am already forgoing my financial assistance and living alone in Mumbai. It seems they will throw me out of office and drag me to DEATH. Not paying off ad-hoc salary is nothing but part of their Harassment."3
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: Khushi Ram, AGM & CPIO present through audio conference.
The Appellant was heard at length during the course of which she desired to narrate in detail the factual background of the information sought for in the RTI Application as well as the entire timeline of the alleged sexual harassment case being pursued by her. While the Commission continued to hear her submissions, she was counselled about the scope and mandate of the RTI Act which did not warrant a threadbare analysis of the said factual background or the gamut of questions and dissatisfaction she stated to be having with the action taken by the Respondent Bank in the matter of the alleged sexual harassment. However, she burst into frenzied arguments expressing her discontent with the hearing proceedings and demanded to be heard in the manner she deemed as fit.
The CPIO reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant and the hearing was concluded reserving the decision in the matter.
Decision:
In view of the hearing proceedings, the Commission deems it fit to verbatim quote the contents of the written submissions (17 pages excluding enclosures) filed by the Appellant on 17.01.2023 (common to 9 of her Appeals that were listed for hearing in a bunch manner), of which, the factual background is being quoted only to the extent that provides a gist of the narrative, as other details bear sensitive information related to the case averred to have put forth to the Internal Complaints Committee of the Respondent Bank and other concerned competent authorities:
"1. In UCO Bank fence is eating crops! At the outset, the instant case is in respect of one malaise, "Corruption " - the cancer at the heart of so many problems that has been plaguing the Indian Banking System, particularly the Public Sector Banks. The illegal & unethical practices flourishing in UCO Bank and the relentless harassment and irreparable detriment caused, constrained me to file as many as nine appeals before the CIC. This case is a jarring example of how conscious efforts to scuttle the investigation, thereby stifling the complaints of grievous nature and brow-beating of a whistle-blower, have been made in a 4 recurring manner, by certain top- executives of the respondent bank. Respondents allegedly abused their powers and misused their positions in harbouring one another, thereby, committing various offences, inter alia offences of perpetrating corrupt practices, criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery, using fabricated documents as genuine, and offences involving moral turpitude, liable to be punished under the various Indian laws, in order to ensure that their nefarious activities, inter alia abuse of powers, enabling of sexual harassment and perpetrating cruelties on employees of the respondent bank could go unchecked without any hindrance.
2. The instant case is a glaring example of relentless persecution of a woman employee of a Public Sector Bank, who has been taken in reprisal, thereby converting entire machinery available at disposal of respondent bank, into an instrument to harbour perpetrators & settle personal score by the means of frequent transfers, arbitrary suspensions, spoiling her career and disqualifying her from the promotion, bombarding her with plethora of forged and fabricated show- causes, reminders, notices and as many as three fabricated charge- sheets basing outright fictitious and fabricated complaints cropped up against her, illegally removing her from services of UCO Bank, hounding her with carrying out perennial and everlasting inquires thereby keeping such departmental proceedings at abeyance for an indefinite period, all this to her, only because she opposed & acted against the sexual advances of a stalwart union leader of the bank and blew whistles in discharge of her duties as a banker, against corrupt practices being carried out in respondent bank.
xxx
30. The gist of aforementioned facts have been brought out succinctly in the following words: In pursuance of alleged incident of sexual harassment, Mr. Harmohan Arora, Mr. Naresh kumar & Mr. Atul Kumar Goel allegedly in complicity with the AIBOC Leaders, among other conspirators hatched a criminal conspiracy against me, thereby colluding with one another, they attempted to muzzle the complaints of grievous nature filed against them, throw me out of bank's premises, forcibly transferred and illegally suspended my service, cropped up forged and fabricated complaints, dodged my requests to provide copies of crucial pieces of evidence, and cropped up as many as three (03) bogus inquiries against me, with an ulterior motive of wielding quasi-judicial powers, as a tool for a witch- hunt and a means to ensure that a pendora's box is not opened. I was allegedly faced with gang of powerful leaders and executives, who in order favour perpetrators abused their powers recurrently, and illegally threw me out of the 5 services, that caused me a wrongful loss to the tune of 20 lakh approx. in terms of emoluments, & also caused irreparable harm to my body, mind and reputation; that I was removed from the bank's service without passing any final Order w. r. t the inquiry proceedings conducted into the allegations of sexual harassment; that at the same, time, all the complaints alleging said top executives of the bank of having committed various corrupt activities, are pending for their disposal at UCO bank's end, and thereby suppressing material facts stated therein the said complaints, I have been illegally removed from the service, just to ensure that pendora's box is not opened. A Writ petition to this effect bearing Ref. No. 5092/2021 has been filed before the Bombay High Court."
At the very outset, the Commission notes that the information sought for by the Appellant is in the form of seeking clarifications, justification that does not constitute as 'information' under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.."
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' 6 or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."
(Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to 7 communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." Emphasis Supplied Similarly, a bare perusal of the grounds of the Appellant's dissatisfaction as communicated through her appeal grounds as well as her written submissions suggest that she is questioning the merits of the action/inaction of the Respondent office against her sexual harassment complaint; merits of the suspension order issued to her and issues related thereto. None of these aspects of the case are amenable to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the RTI Act or are answerable by the CPIO within his mandate under the Act. Here, the Appellant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) 8 Having observed as above, the Commission is not in a position to order any relief in the matter as the reply provided by the CPIO is appropriate as per the provisions of the RTI Act. For any further dissatisfaction with the alleged administrative decisions taken by the Respondent Bank or the alleged inaction, the Appellant is advised to approach the appropriate forum.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 9