S V Hari vs Bank Of Baroda on 31 March, 2022

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

S V Hari vs Bank Of Baroda on 31 March, 2022

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 01.11.2019 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 29.03.2019 and first appeal dated 12.07.2019:-

Regarding letter No. BZO/HRD/1171/2109 dated 21.03.2019:-

        (i)     Management Exhibits.
        (ii)    Defence Exhibits.
        (iii)   Argument of Defence.
        (iv)    Argument of Management.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 29.03.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Page 1 of 4 Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of Baroda, Bangalore, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIOvide letter dated 12.06.2019 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 12.07.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 25.07.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved bythat, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 01.11.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 01.11.2019inter 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 12.06.2019 and the same is reproduced as under:-

"The information sought by you is vague. You have not mentioned to whom the information sought by you pertains to. Hence, PIO is not able to accede to your request.

Further, the information required by you is personal information and available to the bank in its fiduciary relationship with the employees and Bank is bound to maintain secrecy of its employees. Moreover, there is no pubic activity or public interest involved warranting disclosure of the information sought for by you. It is also observed that the disclosure of the information sought by you would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.

Hence/ the information is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) & 8(1)(j) of the Act"

The FAA vide order dated 25.07.2019 directed the CPIO to provide the information to the appellant.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri I V K Chakraborty, Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Bengaluru, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he was an employee of Dena Bank (Bark of Baroda) and he was charge sheeted and he had been deprived of justice. He further submitted that he was awarded major punishment of demotion from Scale III to Scale II for Page 2 of 4 no fault of him. During the enquiry, he had not been provided any of the information as per rules. Further, he stated that he sought aforesaid information which was not provided by the respondent till date.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought was vague hence proper reply could not be sent to the appellant. They further submitted that information sought i.e. documents like Management Exhibits, Defence Exhibits, Arguments of Defence and Argument of Management in respect of letter dated 21.03.2019 contained more than 1000/- pages. The appellant did not specify the documents he wanted therefore the same could not be provided. However, they assured to provide the complete information to the appellant.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the respondent have defied the direction of the First Appellate Authority and information sought was not provided till date. The appellant was charge sheeted and he was awarded major punishment of demotion from Scale III to Scale II. The appellant during the hearing submitted that documents sought were relating to his dismissal therefore he was entitled for the information. Moreover, the respondent during the course of hearing expressed their inability to provide the information/documents to the appellant. However they assured that complete information would be provided to the appellant. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide revised information/reply to the appellant upon payment of requisite fee, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With the above observations and directions, 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: 31.03.2022 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. Central Public Information Officer, Bank of Baroda, Regional Office - North,2nd Floor, 41/2, Vijaya Tower, M.G.Road, Trinity Circle Bangalore-560001.

First Appellate Authority, Bank of Baroda, RegionalOffice - North,2nd Floor, 41/2, Vijaya Tower, M.G.Road,Trinity Circle Bangalore -560001 S V Hari Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission