K Venkatesan vs Central Bank on 31 January, 2023

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

K Venkatesan vs Central Bank on 31 January, 2023

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 19.07.2021 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 15.01.2021 and first appeal dated 02.04.2021:-

(i) "Details of action taken by the MD & CEO of the Bank on the advisory letter dated 29.05.2020 of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Madurai, addressed to him and seeking for his directions to the Regional Manager, Madurai and the Zonal Manager, Chennai, for interim employment of all the genuinely aggrieved casual sub-staff workers, numbering 15, in Madurai Region, in both the IDs, as committed by the Bank's Regional Office management at the conciliatory meeting held on 27.08.2019 by the RLC (C), Page 1 of 4 Madurai which was minutized and communicated by the RLC (C), Madurai by letter dated 27.08.2019 addressed to the parties to the disputes.

(ii) Certified copies of the Letters addressed by the MD&CEO or Central Office to the Zonal Manager, Chennai, and the Regional Manager, Madurai, in pursuance of the above said letter from RLC (C), Madurai.

(iii) Certified copies of the Reply Letter received from the Zonal Manager, Chennai and the Regional Manager, Madurai.

(iv) Action taken by Central Office on such reply letters.

(v) If MD & CEO or Central Office did not take any action on the said letter of RLC (C), Madurai, the reasons for inaction.

(vi) If further action was not taken by MD & CEO or Central Office on reply letters received from Zonal Manager and Regional Manager, the reasons for no further action.

(vii) Certified copy of final reply by MD & CEO or Central Office to the above-said letter of RLC (C), Madurai.

(viii) Reasons for non-compliance with the advisory of the RLC (C), Madurai, given in his said letter dated 27.08.2019 addressed to the MD&CEO."

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 15.01.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Central Bank of India, Madurai , seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 18.03.2021. replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated02.04.2021. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) did not reply of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 19.07.2021 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 19.07.2021 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Page 2 of 4 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 18.03.2021 and the same is reproduced as under :-

"(i. to viii.) The information sought for is exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.

The information sought for is subject matter of litigation and the same is pending for consideration in various forums including Hon'ble High Court of Madras in W.A filed by one of the party in ID No.45/2014 before the RLC. Hence the matter is lispendens."

The FAA vide did not pass any order

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri K.Murlidharan, Dy. Regional Manager, Central Bank, Madurai attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the matter was pending before Regional Labour Commissioner-Central, Madurai, which was not an adjudicating authority but only a conciliating officer under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, the ground taken by the CPIO for denial of information under provision of section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act was not applicable in the case.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that matter was sub judice before RLS, Madurai. Therefore, the erstwhile CPIO had denied the information 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 the reply given by the respondent was perfunctory. The respondent failed to establish that investigation was pending as claimed by them. Moreover, information sought by the appellant may not be declined merely on the grounds of pendency of a matter or matters before any forum. Therefore, the exemption claimed by the respondent under provisions of section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Page 3 of 4 Act was not sustainable in the eyes of law. Perusal of the RTI application revealed that the appellant had sought records and certified copies of documents in his RTI application except for point no. (viii) of the RTI application wherein reasons were sought which were not covered under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to re-visit the RTI application and provide point-wise information except for point no. (viii) of the RTI application 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: 30.01.2023 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत#) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

THE CPIO: CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE, RAJA MUTHIAH MANDRAM, OPP.DIST.COURT, DR.AMBEDKAR RD.DIST-

MADURAI,TAMILNADU-625020 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE,48/49 MONTEITH ROAD, EGMORE, CHENNAI,TAMILNADU- 600 008 SH. K. VENKATESAN Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission