Central Information Commission
Prem Lala Kawtia vs Bank Of Baroda on 23 December, 2021
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
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001539
Prem Lala Kawtia ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Bank of Baroda,
Bhubaneshwar ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 24.12.2013 FA : 01.02.2015 SA : 19.03.2015 CNC: 07.06.2017
CPIO : 21.01.2014 FAO : 03.05.2014 Order :28.09.2016 Hearing:09.11.2021
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
SHRI SURESH CHANDRA
ORDER
(23.12.2021)
1. The issue under consideration is the complaint of non-compliance (CNC) of CIC's order dated 28.09.2016.
2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 24.12.2013 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of Baroda, Bhubaneswar, seeking following information:-
(i) Copy of whole turnover pre-shipment/ post shipment guarantee cover from ECGC Commission which is a condition precedence to allow the loanee, i.e. M/s. Lata Industries, Cuttack for Export Packing Credit Cum FBP limit of Rs. 100.00 lacs.Page 1 of 7
(ii) Copy of separate demand loan packing credit account along with credit ledger of M/s. Lata Industries, College Square, Cuttack, which is a condition (Clause no-7 of sanction order) for sanction of Export Packing Credit cum FBP limit.
(iii) Copy of firm export order is signed by the buyer and accepted by the exporter along with satisfactory bank report for the loan sanctioned and disbursed by bank to M/s Lata Industries.
(iv) Copy of the document releasing to the amount to M/s. Lata Industries indicating the margin amount and advance value.
(v) Copy of the Insurance policy incorporating SELLER'S INTEREST CLAUSE before releasing the loan where shipment terms are FOB/CFR.
(vi) Copy of insurance policy (covering the attendant risk) covering hypothecated/pledged goods made out/endorsed in favor of M/s. Lata Industries.
(vii) Copy of the letters of credit/firm orders against which packing credit loan was disbursed to M/s Lata Industries.
(viii) Copy of the entire statement of account of the Export Current Account of the loanee M/s. Lata lndustries and state whether any separate Cheque book stamped 'Export C/A" was issued to the loanee.
(ix) Copy of the statement of account of each disbursement made as a separate loan and is liquidated on or before maturity/due date.
(x) Copy of export documents under export LC/firm order against which Export Packing Credit has been disbursed to M/s. Lata Industries and copy of the export document under FBP.
(xi) Copy of the export bill against which Post Shipment Demand Loan (PSDL) has been disbursed to M/s. Lata Industries.
(xii) Copy of the statement of account for all the disbursement made at the pre shipment stage, which is a separate loan including the interest charged at monthly rest.
(xiii) Copy of statutory permissions / clearances required for the activity of export and trading of M/s. Lata Industries.Page 2 of 7
(xiv) Copy of verification report of the stock verified at port site at regular interval as per bank's guidelines and drawing in packing credit.
(xv) Copy of the satisfactory report obtained from ECGC before disbursement of EPC and FPB Loan to the Loanee M/s. Lata Industries.
(xvi) Copy of the comprehensive risk policy of ECGC obtained by M/s. Lata Industries for their shipment to overseas buyers, which are not backed by LCs with limit fixed buyer-wise.
(xvii) Copy of the policy taken by the bank for the credit facility covered under WTPCG/WTPSG/ of ECGC of the loanee M/s. Lata Industries. (xviii) Copy of the report submitted to ECGC by bank for the limit sanctioned. (xix) Copy of the prior approval of ECGC, which is required for specific approval list and restriction cover countries.
(xx) Copy of confirmed letter of credit obtained by the bank before disbursement of EPC limit to M/s. Lata Industries.
(xxi) Copy of the renewed copy of trade license for Joda-barbil area obtained by bank before releasing the credit facility to M/s. Lata Industries. (xxii) Copy of the consent letter to operate from SPCB obtained by bank before releasing the credit facility to M/s. Lata Industries. (xxiii) Copy of the statement of account of the Current Account No. **********069 opened by the loanee M/s. Lata Industries.
The CPIO replied on 21.01.2014 replied to the RTI application. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 01.02.2015 The First Appellate Authority (FAA) disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 03.05.2014 Aggrieved by that the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 19.03.2015 before this Commission which was under consideration and the Commission vide order dated 28.09.2016 passed the following directions:
Page 3 of 7"2. Having considered the submissions of both the parties, we direct the CPIO to make a thorough search through the relevant records and provide to the Appellant the information in response to points No. (i) to (iii) of the RTI application dated 24.12.2013 and points No. (i) and (ii) of the RTI application dated 24.5.2014, free of charge. lf it is the stand of the CPIO after a thorough search that the above information is not available on record, he should file a sworn affidavit to that effect to the Commission, with a copy to the Appellant. The CPIO should comply with our above directives, within twenty days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
The representative of the Appellant stated that the information sought in the RTI application dated 28.5.2014 has also not been provided. We note that in this application, the information sought was regarding a copy of the charge memo issued against the bank officials in relation to irregularities in the loan account of M/s Lata Industries and copy of their suspension orders. ln the above context, we note that the information concerning the action taken by a pubic authority against its employees is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act in view of the Supreme Court judgment dated 3.10.2012 in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs Central Information Commissioner & Ors. [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27734 of 20121. The Appellant has not established any larger public interest for disclosure of this information to her. Therefore, no further action is due on the RTI application dated 28.5.2014."
3. The appellant vide letter dated 07.06.2017 filed complaint for non-compliance of the order of the Commission dated 28.09.2016.
4. The CPIO did not send any response in compliance of the Commission's order dated 28.09.2016 as well as in response to the communication sent by the Registry on 07.08.2017. Hearing on 29.07.2021 4.1 The respondent remained absent and the appellant represented by Shri Vijay Kawatia, son, attended the hearing through video conference.
Page 4 of 7Interim order dated 27.08.2021 4.2. The Commission has passed the following observations and directions on 27.08.2021:-
"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the appellant and perusal of records, observed that the respondent failed to comply with the Commission's order dated 28.09.2016. Further, the respondent did not appear in spite of written hearing notice being served upon them. In their absence, it could not be ascertained as to whether they had filed the affidavit as directed on 28.09.2016 or not. In view of the above, Shri Aseem Kumar Panda, the then CPIO (as on 28.09.2016), and Shri Rajiv Krishna, present CPIO, are show caused as to why penalty as per provisions under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act may not be imposed upon each of them for not furnishing the information and for not complying with the directions of the Commission's order dated 28.09.2016. All written submissions may be uploaded on the Commission's web portal within 21 days."
Hearing on 09.11.2021
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Anmay Kumar Mishra, AGM, Bank of Baroda, Bhubaneshwar, attended the hearing through video conference. 5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had neither filed the affidavit in compliance of the Commission's directions nor provided any information as directed by the Commission. The appellant, being the guarantor to the loan account of M/s. Lata Industries, was entitled to the information, however, the requisite information was not provided so far.
5.2. Shri Anmay Kumar Mishra, AGM, who attended the hearing on behalf of the bank and inter alia, submitted that he had recently joined the office as AGM cum CPIO and the then CPIO was retired. He contended that he was not aware of the proper facts of the case and therefore he sought time to provide proper reply to the appellant.
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that even after lapse of around five Page 5 of 7 years, the order dated 28.09.2016 of the Commission was not complied with by the respondent. In the last hearing on 27.08.2021, it was directed that all the submissions in respect of show cause notice must reach to the Commission within 21 days but the explanation to the show cause notice had not been submitted till the date of hearing. In spite of giving two opportunities to the CPIO, did not give any explanation or appropriate reply to the appellant. The scheduling of matters for multiple times exhausts public resources and wastes the time of this Commission. This shows that the CPIO does not have any respect towards the RTI Act as well as the Commission. The non- compliance of this Commission's orders has caused obstruction in administration of justice. The Commission finds that Shri Aseem Kumar Panda, the then CPIO (as on 28.09.2016), and Shri Rajiv Krishna, present CPIO, are responsible for obstructing the administration of justice and also withholding the information with mala fide. In the absence of any explanation, the Commission has no option but to impose penalty on them as per section 20 (1) of RTI Act. Accordingly, a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) may be imposed on both the CPIOs and Rs. 10,000/- shall be deducted from each of their salaries/pensions of Shri Aseem Kumar Panda, the then CPIO (as on 28.09.2016), and Shri Rajiv Krishna, present CPIO, by the Public Authority in two equal installments and paid by way of demand draft drawn in favour of "PAO, CAT", New Delhi, forward the demand drafts addressed to the Deputy Registrar (CR-II), email: [email protected] Room No. 106, First Floor, Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi 110067. The first installment of penalty amount should reach to the Commission by 23.02.2022 and the final installment of penalty amount should reach to the Commission by 23.03.2022.
6.1 The Commission further directs the respondent to comply with the order dated 28.09.2016 of the Commission within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order, Page 6 of 7 under intimation to the Commission. With the aforementioned directions, the appeal 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: 23.12.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:
CPIO :
1. THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER BANK OF BARODA, REGIONAL OFFICE, ISPAT BHAWAN - 271, VIDYUT MARG, UNIT - IV, BHUBANESHWAR - 751 001 CPIO :
1. Sh. RAJIV KRISHNA (C.P.I.O) BANK OF BARODA, 1st Floor, Bivab Gulmohar, Behera Sahi Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar, Odisha-751012
2. Sh. RAJIV KRISHNA (C.P.I.O) BANK OF BARODA, 1st Floor, Bivab Gulmohar, Behera Sahi Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar, Odisha-751012 (for forwarding to the then C.P.I.O Sh. ASEEM KUMAR PANDA as on 28-09-2016) PREM LALA KAWTIA Page 7 of 7