Pankaj Kumar vs Bank Of India on 24 May, 2019

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Pankaj Kumar vs Bank Of India on 24 May, 2019

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 07.11.2017 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 29.08.2017 and first appeal dated Nil:-

 A representation dated 09.08.2017 (copy attached) was made to the CMD, Bank of India with a copy to i) ZM Bhagalpur, ii) Regional Head, Kolkata,

iii) Head of HR, Bank of India, against Mr. Yash Kumar, Posted as clerk in Parora Branch, Bank of India, Purnea, Bihar for misusing official address of Page 1 of 4 Bank, official mobile number and official email id of Bank of India allotted to my wife Sunita Kumari the then Branch Manager of Parora Branch, for seeking private and personal information about me, which amounts to misconduct while discharging his official duty. As per consignment tracking system of Indian Speed Post (Consignment No.- EF064246942IN), item was delivered on 14.08.2017. With reference to above representation, you are requested to provide following information,

(i) Was the information asked by Mr. Yash Kumar through RTI (copy attached) officially sanctioned.

(ii) If yes, name of the sanctioning authority along with purpose for which RTI was filed by Mr. Yash Kumar may please be provided.

(iii) If, information asked by Mr. Yash Kumar was not officially sanctioned then action taken by Bank of India on ground of misconduct may please be provided.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 29.08.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of India, Adampur Chowk, Bhagalpur, Bihar seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO did not reply. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant has filed first appeal dated nil. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 14.11.2017. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 07.11.2017 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 07.11.2017 inter alia on the grounds that the CPIO did not give any reply.

Page 2 of 4

4. The FAA vide order dated 14.11.2017 held that based on allegations raised by the appellant, an inquiry was conducted and fell short of evidence to find Mr. Yash on the wrong end.

5. The appellant and the respondent Shri Nabarun Chatterjee, Deputy General Manager, Bank of India attended the hearing through audio- conferencing. 5.1. The appellant argued that they have not received the information. The reply given by the respondent is a cover up of their employee's irregular conduct and misuse of official capacity by Mrs. Sunita Kumari, through which frivolous RTI applications seeking information about him from his employer NTPC have been filed by Mr. Yash Kumar.

5.2. The respondent inter alia submitted that in respect of RTI and appeal they had conducted inquiry and then came to the conclusion that as per inquiry report the same fell sort of findings to find Shri Yash Kumar on the wrong end. 5.3. The Commission feels that the appellant through his RTI application did not demand any kind of action against errant officials. The objective of the RTI is not to hold an individual's action wrong or right but the object is to obtain information as it is. The Commission feels that the reply given by the respondent is evasive and perfunctory. They should have given the information as it was. It appears that one individual Mr. Yash Kumar filed RTI application using official email of the respondent bank to seek information from the appellant's office. If it is so then it is the responsibility of the respondent to admit or deny as to whether it is within their knowledge or not. They have not specifically denied as to whether they have authorized any of their employee to seek somebody's personal information from the employer of the appellant.

Page 3 of 4

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, directs the respondent to re-visit the RTI application and furnish information sought by the appellant. If there is any inquiry conducted by the respondent a copy thereof may also be made available to the appellant within ten days of receipt of this order. The respondent is advised to be more cautious in future while dealing with RTI applications. 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) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 23.05.2019 Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission