Central Information Commission
Mr.Roshan Lal Goyal vs United Commercial Bank (Uco) on 29 June, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/001480/19427
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/001480
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Roshan Lal Goyal
H.No. 560, Old Kasauli Road, Kalka
Distt Panchkula 133302
Respondent : Mr. Jagdish Narang
PIO & Dy. Zonal Head UCO Bank, Zonal Office, Bank Square, Sec 17-B, Chandigarh 160017 RTI application filed on : 02/12/2011, 04/12/2011,25/11/2011 PIO replied : 11/01/2012 First appeal filed on : 16/02/2012 First Appellate Authority order : 25/01/2012 Second Appeal received on : 10/05/2012 Information Sought:
RTI-1 dated 04/12/2011
1. Provide me the photocopies of the letters of the Chief Manager, UCO Bank, Patiala main branch whereby the Chief Manager has asked me to provide my vehicle (HR-49 A 3270) for inspection during the month of February, 2006.
2. Letter from the same office asking me to produce the vehicle for inspection during May, 2006.
RTI-2 dated 02/12/2012 The Appellant has sought the photocopies of the following documents:
1) Head office Staff Circular letter No. 33/84 dated 12/06/1984 containing rules for reimbursement of conveyance expenses incurred by officers posted in India.
2) AGM/GM Circular No. 18/85 dated 25/03/1986.
3) CHO/HRD/03/2006-07 dated 09/08/2006.
4) Proforma of vehicle verification report to be submitted by the sanctioning authority after having verified the presence of the vehicle at the place of posting. A) Applicable to branch heads, B) Applicable to the officers posted at the Branch
5) Name, designation and the place of posting of the officer, who was competent to inspect the vehicle of Mr. HR Mahajan, the then Chief Manager, UCO Bank, Patiala Main Branch, for its presence at Patiala.
6) Has any officer, senior in rank to Mr. HR Mahajan, who has visited Patiala Main Branch, after the reporting of Mr. HR Mahajan, over submitted any vehicle verification report, for having seen the Car of Mr. HR Mahajan at Patiala.
7) Mr. HR Mahajan has reported at Patiala Main Branch on 24/05/2004. Please apprise me the rates on which Mr. JC Malhotra , the then Zonal Manager/ Mr. BR Chauhan, the then Zonal Manager Chandigarh have visited Patiala Main branch after 24/05/2004.Page 1 of 3
8) Total amount of conveyance expenses on fuel basis reimbursed to Mr. HR Mahajan, the then Chief Manager, Patiala, Main Branch, from 24/05/2004 to duly, 2007 should be advised to me. This information is readily available from the Conveyance Register maintained by the Patiala Main Branch.
9) Whether any fraud/embezzlement/excess reimbursement claimed by Mr. HR Mahajan on account of conveyance reimbursement and mobile reimbursement was repeated by Mr. Harminder Singh, Chief Officer Inspection and Mr. MK Rawoja, ACO in their inspection report dated 26/03/2007. Inspecting team was at the branch from 03/02/2007 to 26/03/2007.
RTI-3 dated 25/11/2011 Financial benefits of Rs.788.78 (HRA for February 2006) and Rs. 2,152.35 (Conveyance reimbursement on Fuel basis for the month of February, 2006) Total 2041.13 denied to me for putting a check on the Breach of Trust Committed by Mr. HR Mahajan, the then Chief Manager, UCO Bank, Patiala Main Branch.
The Appellant has given reference to the letter no. 370 dated 08/11/2011 whereby the PIO had informed the Appellant about some information. In view of the letter dated no.370 dated 08/11/2011, the Appellant has sought the following information:
1) Total no. of officer's employees working in branch/offices under the administrative control of Zonal office/Regional Office, Chandigarh including officer employees of Zonal Office, Chandigarh as on 28/02/2006.
2) Number of officer employees (as on 28/02/2006) who has been paid House Rent Allowance on the basis of : a) Capital Cost of the house(s) owned by them, b) Rent receipt produced by them, c) Without production of rent receipt and d) Having leased accommodation.
3) Number of officer employees (as on 28/02/2006) who were getting reimbursement of Conveyance Expenses on Fuel Basis.
4) Number of officer employees (as on 28/02/2006) who were keeping their vehicles at the Place of Posting.
5) Whether the vehicle verification Report(s) of all the officer employees (as on 28/02/2006) for having verified the presence of vehicle at the place of posting of the officers, who are claiming conveyance reimbursement on fuel basis are on Bank's records.
6) Copy of the Vehicle Verification Report of Mr. HR Mahajan, the then Chief Manager, UCO Bank, Patiala Main Branch admitted by Mr. Jagdish Malhotra, the then Deputy general Manager/ Mr. BR Chauhan, the then Deputy General Manager, for any one month, which confirms the presence of vehicles of Mr. Mahajan at Patiala, should be made available to me.
7) Monthly Mobile Reimbursement Eligibility of Mr. BR Chauhan, the then Deputy General Manager, UCO bank, Zonal office Chandigarh, for the months of April 2006, May 2006 and June 2006 in the following format: a) Actual amount of the Bill (Billing period of 1 month), b) Monthly mobile reimbursement eligibility and c) Amount actually debited to working expenses and phones.
8) Copy of the letter/process note/vehicle verification report for the month of February, 2006 in which Mr. HR Mahajan, the then Chief Manager, Patiala, Main Branch has reported under his signature that conveyance reimbursement for the month of February, 2006 has declined on account of Non-
availability of my vehicle at Patiala (place of posting).
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
Information is voluminous and as old as period for Feb, 2006 and no record for that period is traceable.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
FAA directed PIO to supply the information sought to the Appellant within 10 working days.Page 2 of 3
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO despite the order of the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Jagdish Narang, PIO & Dy. Zonal Head;
The PIO states that information with regard to RTI application of 25/11/2011 the reply has been sent on 11/01/2012 that the information is old and the records are not traceable. As regards the RTI applications of 02/12/2011 and 04/12/2011 the Appellant has already conducted inspection of relevant records at Branch Office Patiala and Zonal office Chandigarh. The PIO states that an inspection of all the records has been given to the Appellant on 16/02/2012, 22/02/2012, 23/02/2012, 27/02/2012, 29/02/2012, 06/03/2012 and at Patiala on 09/03/2012.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information available on the records appears to have been provided. This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 29 June 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(SS) Page 3 of 3