Central Information Commission
Shri Mahendra T Udeshi vs Bank Of Baroda on 1 December, 2009
Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000290 dated 20-08-2008
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated: 1 December 2009
Name of the Appellant : Shri Mahendra T Udeshi
Mohan Terrace, 4th Floor,
Flat No. 42, 64/72,
Mody Street, Fort,
Mumbai - 400 001.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Bank of Baroda,
Bank of Baroda,
Baroda Corporate Centre,
C - 26, G - Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex,
Mumbai.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Ramaswami Iyer was present.
2. In this case, the Appellant had, in his application dated August 20, 2008, requested the CPIO for the certified copies of a large number of documents relating to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him for his role in the alleged irregularities in the accounts of M/s Phoenix India and M/s Monark Enterprises. The CPIO replied on September 20, 2008, by and large, denying all the information claiming exemption under Section 8(1) (h) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Against this reply, the Appellant went before the Appellate Authority on October 10, 2008. The Appellate Authority disposed of the appeal in his order dated November 8, 2008 in which, while directing the CPIO to provide some information, he concluded that the remaining information was either exempt under the provisions cited by the CPIO or it was too vague and unspecific for the CPIO to act upon. It is against this order that the Appellant has come before the CIC in second appeal.
3. Both the parties were present in the Mumbai studio of the NIC during the hearing through videoconferencing. We heard their submissions at length. In a tabular statement annexed to his second appeal, the Appellant has listed those documents which have not been provided to him in full in course of the disciplinary proceedings in spite of the CVC permission. It was agreed that the CPIO shall allow the Appellant to inspect the relevant records and files concerning these documents and, if not already provided to him earlier, shall provide certified photocopies on payment of the photocopying charges as prescribed under the rules. We direct the CPIO to fix a date, mutually CIC/SM/A/2009/000290 convenient, for inspection of the relevant records but within 20 working days from the receipt of this order. After the inspection, the certified copies shall be provided to the Appellant if already not given in the past.
4. In respect of the Appellant's request for the copies of the relevant extracts from the inspection reports in respect of the above two accounts, we direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant within the same period of 20 working days from the receipt of this order, the certified copies of those sections of these reports as listed by the Appellant in paragraphs 4 to 7 of his application after severing all references to financial transactions in both these accounts.
5. In respect of the correspondence between the Bank and the CBI and the Bank and the CVC, the Respondent submitted that the disclosure of these documents would have adverse effect on the disciplinary proceedings still pending against the Appellant. The Appellant, on the other hand, argued that since the enquiry by the enquiry officer had been completed and the report was spending final decision before the disciplinary authority, there was no likelihood that the disclosure of any of these documents could now have any effect on the course of the said disciplinary proceedings. The Respondent submitted that he would like to have some more time to offer his submissions and arguments on the question of disclosure of the above correspondence. Even though, normally, we do not encourage postponement of cases, in the specific circumstances of this case, we would adjourn our decision on the desirability of disclosure of the above correspondence till another date when we shall hear the final arguments of the Respondent on this matter. Therefore, a fresh date, preferably in the current month itself, be fixed and both the parties be informed.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Assistant Registrar CIC/SM/A/2009/000290