Chayan Ghosh Chowdhury vs Punjab & Sind Bank on 21 September, 2021

[Cites 4, Cited by 44]

Central Information Commission

Chayan Ghosh Chowdhury vs Punjab & Sind Bank on 21 September, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 05.11.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 7.06.2018 and first appeal dated 14.08.2018:-

 Copy of the Notice dated 03.02.2016, issued by Asstt Labour Commissioner (Central), Bareilly under Section l1 (4) of Industrial Disputes Act, l947 and marked as E-1. With respect to E-1, provide the following information:

(i) Certified copy of the Dak Inward Register, as an evidence of receipt of E-1.

Page 1 of 7

(ii) Certified copy of the file notings along with the name & designation of the officials whose opinion/ views/ comments find place in the files in which E-1 was dealt with.

(iii) Name & designation of the official who appeared before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (C), in compliance with the directions contained in E-1.

(iv) If no official appeared before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (C) in compliance to directions contained in E-1, the reasons for the same, as available on records.

(v) Certified copy of the proceedings held before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), in compliance to directions contained in E-1.

(vi) Penal provisions, if any, applicable on officials who disobey the lawful orders of authorities, established under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.06.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab & Sind Bank, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 16.07.2018. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 14.08.2018. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) disposed of the first appeal vide its order dated 24.09.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed a Second Appeal dated 05.11.2018 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 05.11.2018 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant has requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide information immediately and take necessary action as per sub- section (1) of section 20 of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 16.07.2018 gave point-wise reply to the RTI application wherein they stated that Annexure as stated in the RTI application was not received by them, hence, the information sought was not available. The FAA vide his order dated 24.09.2018 agreed with the views taken by the CPIO.

Page 2 of 7

Hearing on 22.09.2020

4. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Lalan Kumar Jha, Chief Manager & CPIO and Shri Alok Kumar Gautam, Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Bareilly attended the hearing through video conference.

Interim order dated 27.10.2020 4.2. The Commission has passed the following observations/directions on 27.09.2020:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observes that reply given by the respondent was evasive and misleading. Moreover, there was incongruity in the reply given by the respondent. The respondent vide letter dated 16.07.2018 informed the appellant that no notice for conciliation was received by them whereas the respondent during the hearing submitted that no dak inward register was maintained by the bank at the time of filing of RTI application. Hence, the Registry of this Bench is directed to issue a Show Cause notice to Shri Raj Kumar Nagra, the then CPIO and Shri Lalan Kumar Jha, the present CPIO, Punjab & Sind Bank, Zonal Office, Bareilly, as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against each of them for not providing correct information to the appellant. The present CPIO, Shri Lalan Kumar Jha, is given a responsibility to serve a copy of this order as well as show cause notice to the then CPIO, Shri Raj Kumar Nagra and secure his written explanations. All the written explanations (from both the CPIOs) must reach the Commission within three weeks. Meanwhile, the respondent is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide a revised reply/information to the appellant, within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order."

Hearing on 03.03.2021 4.3. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Lalan Kumar Jha, Chief Manager & CPIO and Shri Alok Kumar Gautam, Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Bareilly, attended the hearing through video conference.

4.4. The Commission passed the following directions on 22.03.2021:

Page 3 of 7

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, notes that the appellant has not furnished a copy of his written submissions to the respondent and in the absence of which the respondent could not submit their counter submissions before the Commission. Hence, the appellant is directed to serve a copy of their written submission along with all enclosures to the respondent and the respondent is given a final opportunity to file their counter submissions in response to the appellant's submissions. Further, the respondent has not provided any explanation in response to the show-cause notice issued by the Registry of this Bench. Hence in the interest of justice, the Commission gives a final opportunity to the respondent to contest their case. Further, Shri Raj Kumar Nagra, the then CPIO and Shri Lalan Kumar Jha, the present CPIO, Punjab & Sind Bank, Zonal Office, Bareilly, are directed to show cause as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against each of them for not providing correct information to the appellant. The present CPIO is given a responsibility to serve a copy of this order as well as show cause notice to the then CPIO and secure his written explanations. All the written explanations (from both the CPIOs) must reach the Commission within three weeks. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned.

Hearing on 31.08.2021

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Lalan Kumar Jha, Chief Manager & CPIO and Shri Alok Kumar Gautam, Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Bareilly attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the reply given by the respondent was incorrect. He argued that the Notice dated 03/02/2016 issued by Asstt Labour Commissioner (Central), Bareilly under Section l1 (4) of Industrial Disputes Act, l947 was received by the respondents and in compliance of the same, the bank officials participated in the proceedings summoned by the Learned ALC(C). He further placed a copy of the Conciliation proceedings dated 15.06.2017 held before the Learned ALC on records of the Commission along with his written submissions. He, therefore, contended that reply/information provided by the respondent was incorrect. Further, the appellant Page 4 of 7 had sought the information i.e. proceedings of reconciliation from ALC and the office of ALC had supplied the information.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had already furnished revised point-wise reply/information to the appellant vide their letter dated 24.11.2020. The respondent Shri Pradeep Verma submitted point-wise reply vide letter dated 24.11.2020. The respondent explained that the notice dated 03.02.2016 issued by Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Bareilly, had not been received and that the records pertaining to the notice were also not received by them. Therefore, no official went to attend the notice issued on 03.02.2016. However, the notices issues by Assistant Labour Commissioner on 03.04.2016 and 21.07.2016 were received by them and that they also attended the hearings before ALC. The Register for letters received was produced before the Commission and there was no entry of the notice dated 03.02.2016 received by ALC. The respondent during the course of hearing submitted that they had received the notices sent subsequently and 13 persons from their office had also attended the reconciliation proceedings before ALC.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, notes that the respondent did not submit any written explanations in response to the show cause notices issued vide orders dated 27.09.2020 and 22.03.2021. It may be noted that the respondent during the course of hearing submitted that they had not received the notice dated 03.02.2016. The copy of dak inward register i.e. register for received letters was submitted by them on 24.11.2020 which did not have the entry for receipt of notice dated 03.02.2016. However, the delay caused in furnishing the same which was in their custody all along was not justified by the respondent. Besides, in absence of the written explanations and failure to give appropriate response within stipulated time there appears to be lapse on the part of the CPIO. The non-response to the show cause notices also reveal the respondent's non- serious and lackadaisical approach towards the provisions of the RTI Act as well as towards the Commission. In view of the mala fide on part of both the CPIOs, the Page 5 of 7 Commission finds it a fit case for imposition of penalty under provisions of section 20 (1) of RTI Act.

6.1. The Commission notes that the negligence of duty as designated CPIOs appears to be deliberate and mala fide is established on part of both Shri Raj Kumar Nagra, the then CPIO and Shri Lalan Kumar Jha, the present CPIO, hence, both are found liable as per section 20 (1) of RTI Act. In view of this, a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) may be imposed on both and Rs. 5,000/- shall be deducted from each of their salaries of Shri Raj Kumar Nagra, the then CPIO and Shri Lalan Kumar Jha, the present CPIO, by the Public Authority 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 instalment of penalty amount should reach to the Commission by 30.11.2021. With these directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेशचं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) दनांक/Date: 20.09.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत ) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 6 of 7 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

PUNJAB & SIND BANK ZONAL OFFICE, GANGANDEEPCOMPLEX, 148, CIVIL LINES, BAREILLY (U.P.) -243 001 THE F.A.A, PUNJAB & SIND BANK, HEADOFFICE, LAW &RECOVERY DEPTT., BANK HOUSE, 5TH FLOOR, 21,RAJENDRAPLACE, NEW DELHI - 110 125 CPIO :

1. SH. LALAN KUMAR JHA (C.P.I.O) PUNJAB & SIND BANK, ZONAL OFFICE, GANGANDEEP COMPLEX, 148, CIVIL LINES, BAREILLY (U.P.) -243 001

2. SH. LALAN KUMAR JHA (C.P.I.O) PUNJAB & SIND BANK, ZONAL OFFICE, GANGANDEEP COMPLEX, 148, CIVIL LINES, BAREILLY (U.P.) -243 001 (FOR FORWARDING TO THE THEN C.P.I.O SH. RAJ KUMAR NAGRA) CPIO : 1. SH. LALAN KUMAR JHA (C.P.I.O) PUNJAB & SIND BANK, ZONAL OFFICE, GANGANDEEP COMPLEX, 148, CIVIL LINES, BAREILLY (U.P.) -243 001

2. SH. LALAN KUMAR JHA (C.P.I.O) PUNJAB & SIND BANK, ZONAL OFFICE, GANGANDEEP COMPLEX, 148, CIVIL LINES, BAREILLY (U.P.) -243 001 (FOR FORWARDING TO THE THEN C.P.I.O SH. RAJ KUMAR NAGRA) SH. CHAYAN GHOSH CHOWDHURY Page 7 of 7

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission