Mradula vs Bank Of Maharashtra on 20 December, 2021

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Mradula vs Bank Of Maharashtra on 20 December, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 01.10.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through the RTI application dated 06.07.2019 and first appeal dated 13.08.2019:-

(i) Copy of complaints given on 09.04.2019 to Zonal Manager Jabalpur.

(ii) Copy of letters dated 09.04.2019 given by any organization to Zonal Manager Jabalpur on 09.04.2019.

(iii) Copy of action upon the complaints given to Zonal Manager Jabalpur either on 08.04.2019 or 09.04.2019.

Page 1 of 5

(iv) Copy of action upon the organization letters dated 08.04.2019 and 09.04.2019 given to Zonal Manager, Jabalpur.

(v) Copy of provident and pension and gratuity rules.

(vi) Copy of rules for procedure for disciplinary actions.

(vii) Number of employees against whom disciplinary action are initiated in Jabalpur Zone.

(viii) Copy of particular rules under which action has to be taken if any employee fails to take decision in time or takes decisions wrong or revengefully or with ill intention.

(ix) List of such employees who failed to take the decision in accordance to bank procedure and in time.

(x) List of such employees against whom action is taken for taking wrong decision and taking decision not in time taking decision revengefully.

(xi) Copy of rule in which time frame is defined to take disciplinary action and when action is instituted.

(xii) Copy of specific rules when matter is called as vigilance matter.

(xiii) List of employees against whom disciplinary action are initiated during last one year.

(xiv) List of employees where different punishment is given or initiated for the same kind of action and reason thereof during last one year.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 06.07.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of Maharashtra, Shivaji Nagar, Pune, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 02.08.2019 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 13.08.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 17.09.2019 disposed of the first appeal.

Page 2 of 5

Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 01.10.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 01.10.2019 inter alia on the grounds that CPIO has refused access to information requested. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 02.08.2019 informed that in the single application the appellant had asked various queries pertaining to various departments. As per the decision held in the cases in Shri Gautam Mukherjee V/s DGCEL No. CIC/AT/A/2009/000077 dated 28.01.2010 and Rajendra Singh V/s CBI; Complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2007/00967 dated 19.06.2009, the RTI Act does not authorize the petitioner to ask multiple queries in a single petition.

5. The appellant represented by husband and on behalf of the respondent Shri Aditya Prakash Jha, Deputy General Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Pune, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had not accepted her RTI application on the ground that there were multiple queries regarding different departments and that he was supposed to file and seek the information under different RTI application concerning the respective departments.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the erstwhile CPIO had not provided the requisite information on 02.08.2019. However, on receipt of the hearing notice, the RTI application was re-visited and the reply/information was provided to the appellant vide letter dated 15.11.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:

"i. to iv. The information sought by you is incomplete and vague. Hence, we are unable to provide any information.

v. The Pension Regulations and Officers Service Regulations are available on Department of Financial Services website https://financialservices.gov.in Page 3 of 5 The copy of Bank of Maharashtra Employees' Provident Fund Rules are annexed.

vi. Bank of Maharashtra Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1976 and Bank of Maharashtra Officer Employees'(Discipline and Appeal) Regulations 1976 is uploaded on the bank's website www.bankofmaharashtra vii. The information sought by you in incomplete. Hence we are unable to provide any information.

viii. Bank of Maharashtra Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1976 and Bank of Maharashtra Officer Employees'(Discipline and Appeal) Regulations 1976 is uploaded on the bank's website www.bankofmaharashtra ix. & x. The information sought by you is incomplete. Further, the information sought is related to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. The same is exempt from disclosure under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.

xi. Bank of Maharashtra Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1976 and Bank of Maharashtra Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations 1976 is uploaded on the bank's website www.bankofmaharashtra xii. The information sought by you is vague. However, the relevant rules are mentioned in Bank of Maharashtra Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1976 and Bank of Maharashtra Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations 1976 which are uploaded on the bank website www.bankofmaharashtra.in xiii & xiv. The information sought by you is vague. Further, the information sought is related to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. The same is exempt from disclosure under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act."

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the reply given by the respondent vide letters dated 02.08.2019 and 15.11.2021 was incomplete to the extent that the total no. of employees sought in point No.vii could have been given, as the statistics had no Page 4 of 5 personal details. Therefore, the respondent is directed that the RTI application may be revisited and a revised information may be given in respect of point nos (vii) of the RTI Application along with a copy of letter dated 15.11.2021 to the appellant within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With these observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-


                                                                            सुरेश चं ा)
                                                         (Suresh Chandra) (सु        ा
                                                                         सूचना आयु )
                                              Information Commissioner (सू
                                                               दनांक/Date: 20.12.2021
Authenticated true copy

R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)


Addresses of the parties:

CPIO : BANK OF MAHARASHTRA
HEAD OFFICE, LOKMANAGAL,
1501, SHIVAJI NAGAR, PUNE - 5

THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
BANK OF MAHARASHTRA,
HEAD OFFICE, LOKMANAGAL, 1
501, SHIVAJI NAGAR, PUNE - 5


MS.MRADULA




                                                                                Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission