Netrapal Sharma vs Oriental Bank Of Commerce on 10 November, 2020

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Netrapal Sharma vs Oriental Bank Of Commerce on 10 November, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 23.04.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 20.01.2018 and first appeal dated 08.03.2018:-

Page 1 of 6

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 20.01.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 08.03.2018. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 08.03.218. The First Appellate Authority did not pass any order. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 23.04.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 23.04.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the respondent had not provided the information.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 09.03.2018 replied that the information was not available with them and information in respect of 3 to 9 of RTI application was denied under section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act.

Page 2 of 6

Hearing on 08.05.2020:

4.1. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Ms. Poonam Kanwar, representative of CPIO, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Delhi attended the hearing through audio conference.

4.2. The Commission passed the following direction on 11.05.2020:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, feels that the reply given by the respondent through written as well as oral submissions during the hearing are evasive. The disclosure of the attendance register may not result in invasion of privacy of individuals, hence, the exemption claimed by the respondent under section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act is not found sustainable in the eyes of law. In view of this, the respondent is directed to revisit the RTI application and complete information except for point no. 8 of RTI application be made available to the appellant. In view of the perfunctory reply given by the respondent, the Registry of this Bench is directed to show cause notice to Shri Sudhir Sharma, present CPIO, and Head of Human Resources Department, erstwhile Oriental Bank of Commerce, considering him as deemed CPIO, to show cause as to why penalty as per section 20 (1) of RTI Act may not be imposed upon each of them for not furnishing the information. Ms. Poonam Kanwar is given the responsibility to serve a copy of this order on the concerned CPIOs named above and secure their attendance as well as written submissions in the next hearing. All written submissions must reach this Commission within 21 days"

Hearing on 20.10.2020:

5. The appellant attended the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra, Dy. General Manager and Shri Ranjit Singh, Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Delhi attended the hearing in person.

Page 3 of 6

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had received incomplete information. The respondent had partially complied with the Commission's directions and information in respect of point nos 1,4 and 6 of the RTI application was not provided so far.

5.2. The respondent submitted that written explanations in response to the show cause notice was submitted vide letter dated 15.06.2020. The CPIO explained that the erstwhile Oriental Bank of Commerce was amalgamated with Punjab National Bank with effect from 01.04.2020 vide Notification dated 04.03.2020 issued by Ministry of Finance, Government of India. By virtue of this amalgamation Shri Sudhir Sharma was now working as General Manager in Punjab National Bank. The reply dated 08.03.2018 was given on the basis of records placed before him by the dealing officials of the then Human Resource Department of erstwhile Oriental Bank of Commerce to whom he believed to be true and correct. In compliance of the directions of the Commission, the copy of the Indian Bank Association's letter dated 10.03.2017 was available with them and the same would be made available to the appellant. The CCTV footage sought by the appellant was weeded out as the preservation period was 90 days. That being so, they were not in a position to provide CCTV footage pertaining to 2017. Therefore the information submitted by Human Resource Department of erstwhile Oriental Bank of Commerce to the then CPIO was factually correct and based on the record available with the Bank. The CPIO reiterated that there was no mala fide and the information was submitted to the then CPIO in good faith, without negligence and after exercising due diligence. The respondent assured to provide all documents and additional records, if any, to the appellant by hand.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observes that the appellant requested for the information in respect of point nos 1,4 and 6 of the RTI application during the hearing. The respondent clarified that letter dated 10.03.2010 was 10 years old and they had traced it after several attempts. However, the CCTV footage was not available with them. The respondent is accordingly directed to file an affidavit to that effect and affirm the that the CCTV footages were not available with them; and also provide copy of the letter dated Page 4 of 6 10.03.2010 to the appellant. However, the remaining information was made available to the appellant vide letter dated 22.06.2018. The delay caused in furnishing part of the information appears to be inadvertent and in absence of mala fide on part of the CPIOs concerned, action may not be initiated against them. The following observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors. WP(C) 3114/2007 are pertinent in this matter:

"17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued."

6.1. The explanations submitted by the CPIOs are reasonable and satisfactory. In absence of mala fide on the part of CPIOs, it would not be appropriate to take action under provisions of section 20 of RTI Act. Therefore, the show cause notices against Shri Pradeep Chauhan, the then CPIO and Shri Sudhir Sharma, the present CPIO, are dropped. Accordingly, 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: 07.11.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Page 5 of 6 Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE HEAD OFFICE, PLOT No.5, GROUND FLOOR, SEC. - 32, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, GURUGRAM - 122 001 THE F.A.A, ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE HEAD OFFICE, PLOT No.5, GROUND FLOOR, SEC. - 32, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, GURUGRAM - 122 001 NETRAPAL SHARMA Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission