Niranjan Sethi vs State Bank Of India on 23 December, 2021

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Niranjan Sethi vs State Bank Of India on 23 December, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 03.07.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through the RTI application dated 15.02.2019 and first appeal dated 08.04.2019:-

(i) "Copy of promotion policy in SBI for MMGS - II as on 01.11.1993 under Kolkata Circle under normal channel (examination channel).

(ii) List of eligible candidates for the exam held for promotion to MMGS - II as on 01.11.1993 for the exam held on 21.08.1994 (Zone of consideration list).

(iii) Copy of approved note sheet of the promoting authority of the said promotion to MMGS - II as on 01.11.1993 along with list of candidates for interview.

Page 1 of 6

(iv) Copy of approved note sheet of the said exam containing the select list of candidates for the promotion to MMGS - II under examination channel as on 01.11.1993.

(v) Copy of promotion policy in SBI for MMGS - II under 01.11.1995 under seniority channel under Bhubaneswar Circle.

(vi) Copy of approved note sheet of the promoting authority of the said promotion along with list of candidates for interview under seniority channel under Bhubaneswar Circle for the promotion to MMGS - II as on 01.11.1995.

(vii) Copy of approved note sheet of the said interview containing the select list of candidates for the promotion to MMGS - II under seniority channel as on 01.11.1995.

(viii) What is sealed cover procedure for promotion to MMGS - II in SBI, under what circumstances it is followed/applicable. Is it applicable in all cases or at the discretion of the bank?

(ix) Copy of detailed policy guidelines of sealed cover procedure for promotion to MMGS - II in bank since 1995.

(x) Whether this policy was applicable for the back dated promotion held from 1995-2001 for promotion to MMGS - II where the exam taken place on later dates. Provide the copy of laid down rules in these cases."

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 15.02.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Mumbai, Maharashtra, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 06.03.2019 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 08.04.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 17.05.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 03.07.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.

Page 2 of 6

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 03.07.2019 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. 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 06.03.2019 provided response on point no.

(viii), (ix) & (x) and the same is reproduced as under:-

(viii) "The sealed cover procedure shall be applicable in respect of promotions to the next higher grade/scale and confirmation in the bank's service only to the officers in JMG Scale - I to SMG Scale - V against whom disciplinary action is pending or contemplated.

The disciplinary action shall be deemed to be contemplated when i. The officer is placed under suspension or ii. The disciplinary authority passes an order to initiate disciplinary proceedings or iii. CBI or any other agency has filed a charge sheet in the court for the purpose of commencing trial or iv. The bank has permitted/has taken a decision to permit CBI/other investigation agencies to prosecute the official.

The disciplinary action shall be deemed to be 'pending' when i. A change sheet is served on the official or ii. The criminal trial on the official has commenced in a court of law.

(ix) The copy policy guidelines of sealed cover is kept ready. As per the provisions of Section 7(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, the applicable is required to send us demand draft/postal order of Rs. 12/- (i.e. Rs. 2/- per page) favouring State Bank of India to enable us to supply the documents referred above.

(x) The status of pending disciplinary action is obtained at the time of examination i.e. at the time when the candidate actually appear in the exam for backdated promotion."

Page 3 of 6

The CPIO vide its letter dated 20.02.2019 transferred the RTI application to different CPIO's. After receiving notice from CPIO, the CPIO & Assistant General Manager (Premises & Estate), Kolkata vide letter dated 06.03.2019 provided information on point no. 01 to 04 and stated that the information sought pertained to 1993 which was more than 25 years old and the same was not found in spite of diligent search.

The FAA vide order dated 21/24.05.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Sidharth Kumar Acharya, CPIO, SBI Kolkata, Ms. Pranati Satpati, CPIO, SBI Bhubaneswar and Shri Kumar Mohit, DGM, State Bank of India, Bandra attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the promotion policy was a public document and same ought to be disclosed in the interest of transparency and accountability. The appellant further submitted that the respondent had replied to him 2006 in response to another matter and had provided the promotion policy. However, the respondent was denying the information in response to his present RTI application.

5.2. The respondent (Kolkata Circle) while defending their case inter alia submitted that most of the grievances pertained to Bhubaneswar Circle. Further, they had provided most of the documents in the course of proceedings in two writ petitions pending disposal. However, the promotion policy for 1991 were not available as the same was 25 years old. The respondents further submitted that they had sought assistance and co- operation of the Human Resources Department, however, the policies could not be traced out in spite of extensive search. The respondent (Mumbai Circle) submitted that they had provided information in respect of point nos. (viii) to (x) of the RTI application.

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 was incomplete and evasive. It may be noted that the Mumbai Branch have provided the information in respect of point nos. (viii) to (x) of the RTI application.

Page 4 of 6

However, the respondents (Kolkata Circle and Bhubaneswar Circle) have failed to provide the requisite information in respect of point nos (i) to (vii) of the RTI application. With respect to the promotion policy they had taken varied stand. On the one hand they had said that the promotion policy was provided to the appellant and on the other hand they had claimed that the record is not traceable being 25 years old record. The respondent have not shown the record of weeding out or amendment of the promotion policy. Policy document is a permanent document and normally the policy is amended from time to time. In view of the above, Shri Sidharth Kumar Acharya, present CPIO (Kolkata Circle), Shri Alok Shah, the then CPIO (Kolkata Cirlce), Smt. Pranati Satpathy, present CPIO (Bhubanewar Circle), Shri Sanat Mishra, the then CPIO (Bhubaneswar Circle) and Shri Saurav Ghosh, Assistant General Manager (Kolkata Circle) considering him as deemed CPIO, are show caused as to why penalty under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act may not be imposed upon each of them for not furnishing the requisite information. The present CPIO is given the responsibility to serve a copy of this order upon the then CPIOs as well as deemed CPIO and secure their written explanations as well as his attendance on the next date of hearing. All written submissions may be uploaded on the Commission's web portal within 21 days. Meanwhile, the respondent is directed that suitable revised reply/information be made available to the appellant and a copy of the same be uploaded on the Commission's web portal.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 23.12.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 5 of 6 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO : STATE BANK OF INDIA, MADAME CAMA ROAD, NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA 400021.

FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, SAMRIDDHI BHAWAN, 1,STRAND ROAD KOLKATA700 001.

SH. NIRANJAN SETHI Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission