Central Information Commission
Parshuram Mishra vs Department Of Posts on 1 May, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.313, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067)
Before Prof. M. SridharAcharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), CIC
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/182665
Parshuram Mishra v. PIO, Department of Posts
Order Sheet: RTI filed on 20.11.2015, CPIO replied on 10.05.2016, FAO on 30.05.2016, Second
appeal filing date - Nil, Hearing on 16.02.2018;
Proceedings on 16.02.2018: Appellant present, Public Authority represented by CPIO. Mr Vimal
Kishore: Directions, show cause and compensation notice issued.
Proceedings on 04.04.2018: Appellant present from NIC East Singhbhoom, Public Authority
represented by CPIO Mr.Vimal Kishore from NIC East Singhbhoom;
Date of Decision - 01.05.2018: Disposed of.
ORDER
FACTS:
1. The appellant filed two RTI applications dated 20.11.2015 and 23.02.2016, seeking information regarding fraud in his account and the amount illegally withdrawn from his MIS and RD (recurring deposit) accounts lying in the post office. The CPIO gave a point wise reply vide letters 17.12.2015 and 28.03.2016, wherein some of the information was denied on the plea that matter in under inquiry. In response to the RTI application dated 23.02.2016, the CPIO on 28.03.2016 denied the information on point nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11under Section 8 (1)(h) of the RTI Act. Not satisfied with the replies given by the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeals. The FAA stated that appropriate reply has already been given by the CPIO. Aggrieved with the said responses, the appellant approached this commission.
2. The Commission's order dated 20.02.2018:
2. The appellant stated that he is having three MIS (Monthly Instalment Account Scheme) accounts of Rs. 300000/-, 210000/-, 75000/-, 75000/- and one RD of Rs. 3500/-. Therese accounts are jointly held in his name along with his wife/younger brother/father. He alleged that aforementioned amount has been illegally withdrawn by an agent from his account, therefore he sought information pertaining to his accounts, but complete information has not been provided by the respondent authority. The CPIO submitted that fraud has happened in his account and an FIR has been lodged in 2015 and inquiry is pending in this regard.
The CPIO also stated that forensic report is awaited in respect of the fraud held in the aforesaid account. The CPIO submitted that since the inquiry is not completed, therefore complete information has no tbeen provided.
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/182665 Page 1
3. On perusal of the records and submission made by the respondent authority, the Commission observes that the CPIO cannot deny the information simply because the investigation is pending. Exemption given under Section 8 (1)
(h) of the RTI Act is claimed only when the disclosure of such information would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offender. Here in this case the CPIO has simply denied the information without application of his mind.
"1. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP(C)/3114/2007 in the case of Bhagat Singh vs Chief Information Commission and others held that mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information: the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reason as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material Sans this consideration, section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become the haven for dodging demands for information. In my case you have only shown that investigation is pending and there is no material with you to show that the disclosure of the information would hamper the investigation process. Accordingly, the above decision is clearly applicable to the facts of my case.
2. The Central Information Commission in the case of Shri Sathya Narayanan vs Reserve Bank of India dated 24.08.2011 in CIC/SM/A/2010/001239/SG/14214 held that unless the CPIO establishes that the disclosure of the information would impede the process of investigation, the information cannot be refused. It was also held that mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information.
3. The Central Information Commission in the case of Shri P. Sivakumarvs Syndicate Bank dated 09.03.2012 in CIC/SM/A/2010/001664/SG/15147 held that if the intention of the legislature was to deny the information where the investigation is pending, the words "which would impede the process" would become redundant.
4. The Commission further note that Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act is being abused by the CPIO in most of the cases though there are number of decisions given by the Hon'ble High Courts and the Central Information Commission that the CPIO has to examine that whether information sought would have an impeding effect on any ongoing inquiry or investigation. Since, the appellant is seeking information relating to a fraud happened in his account, he is entitled to get the information about such fraud. Pending of inquiry or investigation is not a valid ground of rejection of information.
5. The Commission directs the CPIO to provide complete point wise information in respect of both the RTI applications dated 20.11.2015 and 23.02.2016,to the appellant within 20 days of the receipt of this Order.
6. The Commission directs Mr. Vimal Kishore, to show-cause why the maximum penalty should not be imposed upon him for not providing the complete information to the appellant within the stipulated time period. Mr. Vimal Kishore, is also directed to explain why the public authority should not be directed CIC/POSTS/A/2017/182665 Page 2 to pay compensation to the appellant for causing delay in furnishing the information sought.
7. All responses must reach to this Commission, before 19.03.2018 and the matter is posted for compliance and penalty proceedings on 19.03.2018.
Decision:
3. The appellant in his second appeal sought as follows:
1. We used to give signed withdrawal form (SB-7) for interest withdrawal to the agent then how the accounts have been prematurely closed by using .the same form without any written application-from the depositor to close the accounts?
2. Post office took signatures from us for forensic verification in the month of March and June. What was the purpose and give me the certified copies of the report of forensic investigation?
3. For how long we have to wait for the forensic reports to come? Is there any time frame for completion of verification? If so then what is the time frame?
4. From the circular of post office 15/2010 it is very much clear that this type of fraud has happened before. Why the senior officials didn't take sufficient measures for prevention of this type of fraud for which hundreds of people are suffering?
5. What process was adopted by the post office in the previous frauds that took place in post offices to return the money of the depositors? Did the depositors receive the invested money back from post office? If yes then what was the time taken?
6. This huge amount of scam cannot be done by 4 or 5 postal staffs. Give names of all staffs involved in this fraud.
7. Provide me the document (signed copies of Form SB-7 A or SB-7 along with written application, for each account) proof that can prove that the request of pre-maturity was made by the depositors. [Note: As per circular No.15/2010 of Department of Post, the pre-maturity or closure of any account cannot be done through Form SB-7; for that, Form SB-7A is necessary. If SB-7 A is not available, then a written application should be accompanied with SB-7.]
8. As per circular No.15/2010, signature on written application and signature on withdrawal slip should be matched with signature on account opening form before releasing payment. Was this procedure followed by the postal staff? Please provide the certified copies of all the specimen signature of each of our accounts (SB-3, SB-7 and Written application). If not, then why?
9. If our signatures didn't matched as per the office orders then why payments has been released and to whom payments have been given?
10. As per the circular No. 15/2010, the amount exceeding Rs. 20,000 cannot be given in cash to anybody, and in case of prematurity or closure; any payment should be made by cheque only. To whom the payments were given in case of CIC/POSTS/A/2017/182665 Page 3 our accounts, and what was the mode of payment. If cash payment has been done then provide me certified copies of warrant of payments and why the rule was not followed, and if cheques had been issued, then please provide all the cheque-related details: cheque number, payee's name, payees account number, name of the issuing bank, date of clearance of cheques, and name of bank that cleared those cheques.
11. After verification of our signatures, we were told that some amount against our account has been given by cash and the rest transferred to Saving Account and there from the whole amount has been siphoned by the postal staffs.
How it happened? It is surprising that how the savings account has been opened falsely by the postal staffs without giving prior intimation to us? Please provide certified copies of all the saving account opening forms for all our accounts.
12. Does the signature of depositor's matches with the signatures of savings account opening form? Please provide me certified copies of all the forms.
13. Does the signature of depositors matches with the payment warrants of savings account from where cash has been withdrawaled? Please provide me certified copies of all the forms.
14. Why not the concerned officials checked the authenticity of savings account?
15. As per as I know the signatures on the written application didn't matches with our original signatures then why our signatures were not crossed checked by the concerned officials before closing accounts and releasing payments?
16. In the FIR lodged regarding this case by the post office, the declared amount of fraud is Rs 1.44 crores, whereas according to our calculation, it is more than Rs 4 crore. Please provide the details of your calculation.
During internal verification, it reveals that most of signatures on the withdrawal slip didn't matches with the signatures of account holder. Then how the money has been withdrawn, which was also brought to the notice of enquiry team appointed by the post office, the post office authority assured to conduct a forensic verification to reveal the truth, but even after the lapse of more than 1 Year none of us received any money lost so far. Why so happened. Please, furnish the certified copy of statement given by me during enquiry.
17. In the FIR done from your side against 5 postal staffs you left out the most important point that how the accounts have been closed prematurely with SB7 forms without any written application from the depositor. Why didn't you include this point in the FIR?
18. How long the post office will take to return our money back, as the rules have been violated from their side and payments have been made to a wrong persons via wrong modes using malpractices otherwise this huge amount of scam couldn't have take place?
19. Provide me certified copies of internal investigation report, done by the postal enquiry team appointed by you, for each of our accounts.
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/182665 Page 4
20. According to citizen's charter, the time frame for settlement of complaints in case requiring investigation is 90 days. The matter is under investigation since the last 1 Year. Why this delay? How much more time the post office needs to return our money?
21. What measures have been taken by the post office to refund our money and till when we will receive our money?
22. We have filled the claim form as instructed by the Sr. Supdt. Of Posts, Singhbhum division in the 2nd week of March. What is the actual purpose to file the claim form? How much more time the post office needs to return our money?
23. As per the answers given by you in the First appeal in Para-14 "A fraud for a sum of Rs 2,18,47,721/- has been ascertained as per your enquiry team report". My question is when you are admitting that a fraud has been done and it is proved then why are you not returning us our money?
24. As per Para 14 you are admitting that a fraud has been done and on the other hand as per Para 17 of your answer you are saying that "it has not been proved that the payment has been made to a wrong person". Both these answers of yours is contradictory, please clarify.
25. My Question regarding Para 14 of your answer is, what steps you have taken to prove that whether the payment has been made to wrong person or not and how long will it take to prove?
26. If payment would have been done to the actual depositors then this Scam wouldn't have happened. What more proof you need to prove this scam?
27. If this Scam is not proved, then why post office filed an FIR on the postal staffs and the concerned agent?
4. The SSPO, Singhbhum Division, Jamshedpur division on 21.10.2016 submitted to the Commission as under:
"An application dated nil under RTI Act of Sri Parsuram Mishra was received to this office on 20/11/15. The information was supplied to the requester on 17/12/15 vide this office letter no.-L/RTI Act/Public/95/15-16 dated 17/12/15 within stipulated period. Again an RTI application dated 23/02/2016 under RTI Act of Sri Parsuram Mishra was received to this office on 23/02/16. The information was supplied to him on 28/03/16 vide this office letter no.-L/RTI Act/Public/149/15-16 dated 28/3/16. As the SSPOs was on leave on 23/03/16 and 24/03/16 to 27/03/16 was holiday, reply was sent to him on 28/03/16. Then he submitted an appeal dated 26/04/16 against the said RTI reply through Sr. Postmaster Jamshedpur HO on dated 29/04/16 which was forwarded h/w along with para-wise comment on the appeal to CO Ranchi vide this office letter no.L/RTI Act/Appeal/Corr/2017-18 dated 10/05/16.
Now he has submitted 2nd appeal dated 16/09/16 to CIC through Sr. Postmaster Jamshedpur HO on dated 16/09/16 which is forwarded h/w alongwith parawise comment on the 2nd appeal.
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/182665 Page 5
Brief history of the case:-
The case in brief is that the depositors of MIS/RD/SCSS Accounts handed over the pass books, filled up/blank & signed withdrawal forms (SB-7) and even ID/address proof/photographs in good faith to Miss Suparna Paul SAS agent. She in turn misused their faith and closed their accounts in connivance of Postal officials at Jamshedpur HO & Sonari SO. The depositors never bothered to collect the pass books from SAS agents and verify their balances as instructed in passbook itself. The pass books were lying with the said SAS agents years together which goes to show that the depositors did not act correctly and trusted the agent blindly. The entire episode happened only because of their carelessness. Had the depositors acted as per instruction printed in the pass book the entire episode could have been averted.
Parawise comment on the 2nd appeal dated 16/09/16:-
Para-1:- As mentioned above.
Para-2:- Their signatures on records with that of SB-7 in question haven been sent to forensic lab for verification but the same is yet to be received.
Para-3:- It depends on forensic lab. This office does not have information.
Para-4:- No such fraud came in to light in this division.
Para-5:- Question does not arise.
Para-6:- As in para-1.
Para-7:- The entire documents related to the case have been submitted to forensic lab for verification.
Para-8:- On receipt of report from the forensic lab the decision will be taken by the undersigned.
Para-9:- Same as in para-8.
Para-10:- The case is under inquiry, which cannot be produced under section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act 2005.
Para-11:- The depositors of MIS/RD/SCSS Accounts handed over filled up/blank & signed forms in good faith to Miss Suparna Paul SAS agent. She in turn misused their faith and opened SB accounts.
Para-12:- This is under inquiry with forensic lab.
Para-13:- Same as in para-12.
Para-14:- The officials lapses will be ascertained on receipt of report from forensic lab.
Para-15:- Same as in para-14.
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/182665 Page 6 Para-16:- At the time of lodging of FIR, the amount of fraud was around 1.44 Crores. However inquiry is still under process. As per inquiry team report (till date) fraud for a sum of Rs. 2,18,47,721/- has been ascertained.
Para-17:- Police investigation will bring the all fact into light.
Para-17(a):- As in para-12.
Para-18:- On receipt of report from forensic lab action will be taken accordingly.
Para-19:- The case is under inquiry, which cannot be produced under section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act 2005.
Para-20:- The case is pending with forensic lab.
Para-21:- Same as in Para-18.
Para-22:- Same as in Para-18.
Para-23:- Same as in Para-18.
Para-24:- It is alleged fraud the same will be proved only on receipt of report from forensic lab.
Para-25:- The case is pending with forensic lab.
Para-26:- The entire episode of alleged fraud happened only due to over faith of Miss Suparna Paul SAS agent by the depositors by handing over all the signed documents to her. The fraud can only be established on receipt of report from forensic lab.
Para-27:- The scam was really happened or not can be ascertained only on the outcome of the police investigation/forensic lab report."
5. Shri Vimal Kishore, CPIO in his written submission dated 08.03.2018, explained as under:
"With reference to above cited letter, it is to intimate that an application dated nil under RTI Act 2005 of Sri Parashuram Mishra was received to this office on 20/11/15. The information was supplied to the requester on 17/12/15 vide this office letter no.- L/RTI Act/Public/95/15-16 dated 17/12/15 within stipulated period. Again an RTI application dated 23/02/16 under RTI Act of Sri Parsuram Mishra was received to this office on 23/02/16. The information was supplied to him on 28/03/16 vie this office letter no.- L/RTI Act/Public/149/15-16 dated 28/3/16. As the SSPOs was on leave on 23/03/16 and 24/03/16 to 27/03/16 was holiday, reply was sent to him on 28/03/16. But he was not satisfied with the reply and he preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority Director Postal Services Jharkhand Circle Ranchi. Being not satisfied with the reply of 1st appellate authority the applicant preferred 2nd appeal before Hon'ble CIC.
In compliance to the order of Hon'ble Commission a complete points wise information in respect of both the RTI applications dated 20-11-15 and 23-02-16 CIC/POSTS/A/2017/182665 Page 7 have been provided to the applicant vide this office letter no.- CIC/P.R.Mishra/149/12/18-(1) dated JSR-3 the 08-03-18 and No.- CIC/P.R.Mishra/149/12/18-(2) dtd at JSR-3 the 08/03/18.
As per show cause notice issued a maximum penalty to the undersigned has been proposed by Hon'ble Commission. In this regard it is humbly submitted that at the time of furnishing information to the applicant on his application dated 20-11- 15 and 23-02-16, Sri S.P. Singh was CPIO cum Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices Singhbhum Division Jamshedpur. I took the charge of SSPOs on 16-11-2016. Under these circumstances, it is requested to exempt the undersigned for any proposed penalty and action by the Hon'ble Commission.
6. The SSPO, Singhbhum division, Jamshedpur in his letter dated 08.03.2018 intimated the appellant as under:
"Para-1:- As per the statement written by you, the signed withdrawal slips and Pass Book were handed over to Miss Suparna Paul SAS Agent. This is breach of trust between you and the said SAS Agent. You never took pain to come to Post Office to check your balance years together. As per instruction printed in every pass book, depositor has to verify entries/stamps after every transaction but you failed to do so. You kept the pass book under her custody for years together.
The copy of instructions of Postal department to the customers of Post office Saving Banks and copy of the Rule 162(b) of Postal SB Manual Vol-I regarding withdrawal of interest from MIS accounts were attached and the same is also available on the India post website.
Copy of GSR701 (E)-Post office Monthly income Scheme 1987 (POSB Man Vol-III) is attached and the same is also available on the indiapost website. Copy of ruling regarding settlement of claims arising out of frauds in financial services is also enclosed.
Para-2:- There is no limit of withdrawal through a withdrawal slip.
Para-3:- The matter is under investigation by the Police/Subjudice in the Hon'ble Court consequent upon the lodging of FIR by the department.
Para-3&4:- The information is based on the preliminary enquiry made by the department as mentioned below Sl. No. Details of MIS/RD Date of maturity/prematurity Mode of payment
1. 4047691 22.05.12 Cash
2. 4383024 09.11.13 Cash
3. 4385811 03.02.14 Under inquiry
4. 988284 Under investigation Under inquiry The matter is under investigation by the Police/Subjudice in the Hon'ble Court.
Para-5:- As mentioned in para 3 & 4.
Para-6:- Procedure for premature closure of MIS account is given in Rule 163(b) of POSB Man Vol-I is enclosed and the same is also available on the indiapost website.
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/182665 Page 8 Para-7:- Copy of Rule regarding premature closure of account is enclosed and the case is under investigation by the Police/subjudice in the Hon'ble Court. However for prematurity of MIS account bearing no. MIS account bearing no. 4047691, the application signed by Smt. Neelam Devi was given on dtd 22.05.12 which is enclosed herewith.
Para-8:- Any agent/staff of Post Office are not authorized to work as messenger for withdrawal purpose. Moreover the matter is under investigation by the Police/Subjudice in the Hon'ble Court and final responsibility can be fixed on any person only after judgement of the Hon'ble Court.
Para-9:- Same as para 8 above.
Para-10:- An FIR has been lodged at Sonari P.S. Jamshedpur no-14/16 dated 27/01/16 and the same is a public document. Certified copy of the same may be had from Hon'ble Court.
Para:11:- Internal departmental enquiry is going on in to the case and not concluded as yet. FIR has been lodged in Sonari PS on the issue of alleged frauds in different types of accounts at different post offices at Jamshedpur.
Para:12:- As per departmental rules and instruction FIR has been lodged against the SAS Agents and officials involved. Police investigation is going on and the case is subjudice in the Court. Departmental inquiry/action in progress and not concluded as yet.
Para-13:- Internal departmental inquiry is going on in to the case and not concluded as yet. As such it is not available. FIR has been lodged in Sonari PS on the issue of alleged frauds in different types of accounts at different post offices at Jamshedpur.
Para-14:- Since the cases are under investigation by the police as well as the department and facts are not clear as yet, hence it is difficult to predict any time for settlement of claim."
7. The appellant submitted that incomplete information was supplied to him even after show cause notice was issued to the respondent authority. He complained that his money was siphoned off by the officials of the respondent authority. The appellant further alleged that the respondent authority with a malicious intent have misappropriated his money.
8. The officer submitted that he took charge as CPIO in the year 2016 and with regard to the information aspect, the respondent authority have given complete information at every interval without any concealment.
9. The Commission upon perusal of records and hearing the submissions of both the parties finds that the respondent authority has provided sufficient information except copy of inquiry report. It is further noticed that the appellant CIC/POSTS/A/2017/182665 Page 9 has not come up with clean hands and have suppressed material information. The Commission directs the respondent authority to provide certified copies of the inquiry report along with relevant communications made between the Sonari PS and the Department of Posts in relation to the appellant's account, as soon as the inquiry is completed and report the compliance to this Commission. Disposed of.
SD/-
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Central Information Commissioner
CIC/POSTS/A/2017/182665 Page 10