Rajesh Kapoor vs State Bank Of India on 6 May, 2020

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Rajesh Kapoor vs State Bank Of India on 6 May, 2020

1. The issues under consideration i.e. the reliefs sought by the complainant in his complaint dated 08.03.2018 due to alleged non-supply of information vide his RTI application dated 27.10.2017 are as under :

• Admit the complaint and inquire into the same by invoking powers • Direct the respondent to refund the application fee • Impose penalty on respondents • Direct the public authority to make entry in service book/ annual performance appraisal report Page 1 of 5 • Invoke its powers under RTI Act

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the complainant filed an application dated 27.10.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai, seeking following information:

(i) Certified copy of internal manual or guide lines regarding the procedure for handling of complaints.

(ii) Certified copy of the scheme of delegation of powers for closure of complaints.

(iii) Certified copy of the role and responsibility of the Customer Care Dept. of SBI (by whatever name called) in relation to complaints received through various channels.

(iv) As per internal guidelines, what steps should be taken in case the complainant has not provided full details and/or additional details or clarity is required to investigate the complaint.

(v) Does the SBI's online Complaint Management System (by whatever name called) provide a copy of the complaint to the Complainant? If so, please provide a copy of the procedure for doing so.

(vi) Is it possible for the complainant to save a copy or take a printout of his complaint on the online Complaint Management System either at the time of lodging the complaint and/or any time subsequently? If so, please provide a copy of the procedure for doing so.

(vii) Is it possible for a customer of the Bank to know the transaction number of a transaction that did NOT even take place, under the Bank's Internet Banking/CBS Platform?

(viii) Please advise the names, designations, Grade Scales and the Department Names of the officials who decided that additional information was required from the complainant, about my above referred complaint?

Page 2 of 5

(ix) Please advise the names, designations, Grade Scales and the Department Names of the officials who decided that the above referred complaint should be treated as 'Resolved'?

(x) Please advise the names, designations, Grade Scales and the Department Names of the officials who decided that the above referred complaint should be treated as 'Closed'?

(xi) Certified copy of your rules or citizens charter or any other document stipulating the time frame in number of days by which such a complaint/matter should have been dealt with and resolved by your public authority.

(xii) Please provide a Certified Copy of the complaint referred to above.

The CPIO replied on 15.11.2017. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the complainant filed first appeal dated 14.12.2017. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 05.02.2018. Aggrieved by this, the complainant has filed a complaint dated 08.03.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The complainant filed the instant appeal dated 08.03.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the respondent did not provide the requisite information.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated provided point-wise information and the FAA directed the CPIO to provide information with respect to point no. 1 to 4 of the RTI Application.

Hearing on 10.01.2020:

4.1. The complainant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri K.S. Venkatesan, DGM/CPIO and Shri Abhinav Rishi, Law Officer attended the hearing through video conference.

4.2. The Commission passed the following directions on 10.01.2020:

Page 3 of 5

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, feels that identical issues were raised by the appellant in another file no. CIC/SBIND/A/2018/612975. Hence, both the appeals CIC/SBIND/A/2018/612975 and CIC/SBIND/C/2018/613671 may be clubbed and heard together in the next date of hearing. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned."

Hearing on 24.03.2020:

5. Both parties remained absent.

5.1. Perusal of records reveals that the show cause notices were issued to Shri K.S.S.T Venkateswara and Shri P.C. Tamta in CIC/SBIND/A/2018/612975 which was clubbed with this matter. The written explanations were submitted by both CPIOs which were found reasonable and satisfactory.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, feels that the respondent having furnished complete information there appears to be no ground to initiate action as per section 20 against the CPIO. Moreover, the show cause notices having been dropped against the CPIOs in CIC/SBIND/A/2018/612975, this complaint may be rejected. Accordingly, the complaint is closed.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 27.04.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

STATE BANK OF INDIA CORPORATE CENTRE, 9TH FLOOR, STATE BANK BHAWAN, MADAME CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 021 THE F.A.A, STATE BANK OF INDIA CORPORATE CENTRE, 9TH FLOOR, STATE BANK BHAWAN, MADAME CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 021 Rajesh Kapoor Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission