Sunita Katar vs Syndicate Bank on 2 June, 2020

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Sunita Katar vs Syndicate Bank on 2 June, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 14.06.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the Page 1 of 5 appellant through his RTI application dated 19.02.2019 and first appeal dated 20.03.2019:-

• That the applicant is joint holder of FDR No.681797 dated 28.2.2014, FDR No.262899 dated 11.10.2018 and No.916991 dated 30.4.2015.

(i) Kindly furnish the latest status of the aforesaid FDRs.

     (ii)      If encashed, to whom, under which provision?
     (iii)     Furnish the documents, if executed, by person to whom the FDRs
               were/are encashed.
     (iv)      Furnish details of account in which the aforesaid amounts have been
               credited.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 19.02.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Bhagwan Dass Road, New Delhi, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 11.03.2019. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 20.03.2019. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 22.04.2019. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 14.06.2019 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 14.06.2019 inter alia on the grounds that the respondent

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 11.03.2019 provided the status of the FDR accounts. Further, the CPIO partly denied the information under provisions of section 8 (1) (e) and (j) of RTI Act.

Hearing on 21.02.2020:

4.1. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Tribhuvan Singh, Dy.

General Manager, Shri Ashish Maiti, Chief Manager & Ms. Swasti Agarwal, Manager (Law), Syndicate Bank attended the hearing in person.

Page 2 of 5

4.2. The Commission passed the following directions on 28.02.2020:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, notes that the CPIO has replied to the RTI application vide letter dated 11.03.2019. Perusal of the record reveals that some malfeasance had happened in this case which needs to be inquired by the competent authority. Hence, Shri Abhay Kumar, the FAA & General Manager is directed to inquire into the whole matter and fix the responsibility by ascertaining as to who is responsible for encashing the FDR No. 681797 when the same was being renewed every year up to 18.5.2018 which is evident from the copy of the FDR No. 681797 made available by the appellant. The respondent had denied the information to the appellant on the ground of third party information or preventing invasion of privacy under the provisions of Section 8(1) (e) and 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. As the appellant is the joint holder of the FDR in question and the same was renewed from time to time. The FAA will inquire the matter and submit a report to the Commission within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. In view of the above observation and directions, the instant matter is adjourned."

Hearing on 20.05.2020:

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri A Jai Prakash, CPIO, Syndicate Bank, Delhi, attended the hearing through audio conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that she had opened a joint FDR account (FDR receipt no. 681797) with her mother Mrs. Satya Katar at Vikas Puri, New Delhi Branch on 28.02.2014 for 444 days with date of maturity on 18.05.2015. The said FDR was being renewed regularly and entry to this effect was made with renewal/auto renewal date as 18th of May every year till 2018. However, she came to know on 13.02.2019 that the FDR had been encashed prematurely without her consent and signatures and the amount was transferred to third party's account i.e. in the account Page 3 of 5 of her sister Ms. Veena Katyal (with FDR receipt no. 681798). The appellant submitted that such an irregular transaction had taken place in connivance of bank's staff as it was not possible even for her mother to give consent as she was terminally ill and bed-ridden.

5.2. The respondent submitted that in compliance of the Commission's order dated 28.02.2020, an inquiry was conducted and it was found that the appellant along with her mother Mrs. Satya Katar and her sister Ms. Veena Katyal were maintaining joint account at Vikas Puri Branch. The respondent submitted that on 28.02.2014 two FDRs were prepared, one in the name of Mrs. Satya and Mrs. Sunita and the other FDR in the name of Mrs. Satya and Ms. Veena. Both the appellant as well as Ms. Veena had requested for renewal of FDRs and later approached the bank of 20.12.2018 requested the bank to issue duplicate FDRs on account of loss of their original FDRs. Thereafter, they requested to close both the FDRs prematurely on 11.01.2019. The proceeds were credited in to another joint SB a/c held by Ms.Veena and the appellant. The respondent further stated that the appellant again approached in February 2019 and claimed payment by producing original FDR and it was informed that the same was already paid by issuing a duplicate FDR at the request of Mrs. Satya and Ms. Veena. It becomes clear that the appellant along with her sister had falsely claimed that the original FDRs were lost, the family members had fraudulently and deliberately submitted documents with the bank for wrongful encashment of the FDR which was issued in the name of Mrs. Satya and the appellant. The bank had initiated suitable civil/criminal action against Ms. Veena Kayal as she along with her mother Mrs. Satya had reported that the original FDRs were lost whereas the same were very much available with the appellant. They had issued legal notice to the parties involved in the matter. The respondent concluded his arguments stating that all details requested for by the appellant along with relevant dates were given to the appellant and there was nothing pending on their part.

Page 4 of 5

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 have complied with the Commission's order dated 28.02.2020 and have furnished the inquiry report with detailed findings in respect of the two FDR receipt nos. 681797 and 681798. Prima facie, it appears that there has been certain malfeasance with respect to unauthorized encashment of FDRs which the respondent have inquired into the matter and have initiated legal proceedings against the parties. Further, the respondent have provided the details requested for by the appellant. That being so, the appellant is at liberty to seek legal recourse before appropriate forum. 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: 26.05.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. SYNDICATE BANK REGIONAL OFFICE - II, TAMIL SANGAM BUILDING, SEC. - 5, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI - 110022 THE F.A.A, SYNDICATE BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE - II, TAMIL SANGAM BUILDING, SEC. - 5, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI - 110022 Sunita Katar Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission