Toni Sunil Bamne vs State Bank Of India on 19 November, 2020

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Toni Sunil Bamne vs State Bank Of India on 19 November, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 07.05.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 04.01.2018 and first appeal dated 22.02.2018:-

Page 1 of 5

(i) िदनां क 06 िदसंबर 1994 को सवाधी जमा करने के बाद उसपर ाज संबंधी िनयम व शत द ावेज की स ा त िमलने हे तु और उसके संबंधी सभी द ावेज

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 04.01.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Ballarpur, Chandrapur, Maharashtra, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 16.02.2018.

Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 22.02.2018. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 06.03.2018. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 07.05.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 07.05.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the requisite information was not provided by the CPIO. The appellant has requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information free of cost and take necessary action as per sub-sections (1) & (2) of section 20 of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 16.02.2018 replied to the RTI application. The FAA vide his order dated 06.03.2018 agreed with the views taken by the CPIO.

Hearing on 29.04.2020:

4.1. The appellant's advocate, Rajendra Pandey and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Sanjog Arun Kumar, CPIO, State Bank of India, Chandrapur attended the hearing through audio conference.

4. The Commission passed the following directions on 04.05.2020:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, noted that reply given by the respondent was evasive. It may not be acceptable that information sought i.e. copy of rules with regard to payment of interest of fixed deposit was not available with the bank. Moreover, the respondent failed to justify as to why the information Page 2 of 5 sought was not available with them. Besides, the information sought has not been provided by the respondent even after lapse of around two years from the date of filing of this RTI application. Hence, Registry of this Bench is directed to issue a Show Cause notices to Shri Sanjog Arun Kumar, the present CPIO and ShriAruna Kumar Mokrala, the then CPIO, State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Chandrapur, as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against each of them. The present CPIO Shri Sanjog Arun Kumar is given a responsibility to give this show cause notice to the then CPIO Shri Aruna Kumar Mokrala and secure his written explanations. All the written explanations (from both the CPIOs) should reach to the Commission within four weeks. Meanwhile, the respondent is directed to due effort to search the records thoroughly and provide the revised information, to the appellant within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order."

Hearing on 08.10.2020:

5. The appellant's advocate, Rajendra Pandey and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Sanjog Arun Kumar, CPIO, State Bank of India, Chandrapur attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that they had received the interest amount over post-maturity period of FDR. However, the respondent had only done so in the compliance of the Commission's order dated 04.05.2020. 5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the written explanation in response to the show cause notice was submitted vide letter dated 21.08.2020. The respondent explained that it was never a case of denial or non-response to the RTI application. As per the RTI application dt.04.01.2018 of the appellant, the appellant sought to know rules of interest applicable on STDR dt.06.12.1994 and the certified copy of the rules. The rules of interest applicable on the STDR held by the appellant was already written on reverse side of the STDR, Page 3 of 5 which was in the physical custody of the appellant. The copy of the back side of the STDR was produced before the Commission. ln such circumstances, it may be considered that there was no denying of giving any information or any evasive information was supplied. The STDR held by the appellant was issued in the year 1994, which was to mature on 06.12.1999. After 1994 the Bank had gone into technological change of first going from manual banking to Bank Master Technology and later on to Core Banking Solution technology. ln the said process, the record of STDR held by the appellant, was not reflected in the Bank's Book of account. However, since the instructions of the bank was that if the TDR holder were holding the physical copy of the STDR then Bank had to make the payment of the same, which the Bank did, when the STDR holder approached the Bank in the Oct. 2017. The question of payment of interest from 06.12.1999 to 15.12.2017, as claimed by the appellant, the bank had replied since the STDR was old i.e. some 18 years back and it was not reflected in the Bank's Book of account, it denied the payment of interest and inadvertently replied that information sought was 18 years back. In this reply of the then CPIO there was no denial of giving the information or any evasive information was given. The matter was thoroughly looked into and an amount of interest worth Rs. 49,143/- for the period 06.12.1999 to 15.12.2017 at rate of 3.5% was paid to the appellant. That being so, the respondent reiterated that the reply was given to the appellant within stipulated time and there was no mala fide to mislead or withhold any information sought by the appellant.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, notes that the respondent have complied with the Commission's order dated 04.05.2020. Perusal of the records and submissions of the respondent reveals that delay in providing the information was inadvertent. It cannot be said that the CPIO had consciously and deliberately withheld the information. Hence, in the absence of any mala fide, it would not be Page 4 of 5 appropriate to initiate any action for imposition of penalty on Shri Sanjog Arun Kumar, the present CPIO and Shri Aruna Kumar Mokrala, the then CPIO, and the Show cause Notices against them are hereby dropped. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेशचं ाा)) Information Commissioner (सू सूचनाआयु ) दनांक/Date: 17.11.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत ) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

STATE BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL MANAGER - II, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, CHANDRAPUR, VIJEET COMPLEX, BAPAT NAGAR, CHANDRAPUR-NAGPUR ROAD, CHANDRAPUR - 442 401 THE F.A.A, GENERAL MANAGER (NW-5), STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, SYNERGY, PLOT No. C-6, G - BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA SANKUL, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI - 400 051 TONI SUNIL BAMNE Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission