Central Information Commission
Pankaj Kumar Singh vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 31 August, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/RUGBK/A/2017/139817
Shri Pankaj Kumar Singh ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, Madhya Bihar Gramin ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Bank, Regional Office, Nawada,
Bihar
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
FA : Date Not
RTI : 11.01.2017 SA : 05.06.2017
Mentioned
CPIO : 20.03.2017 FAO : 18.05.2017 Hearing : 24.08.2018
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Regional Office, Nawada, Bihar seeking information on twelve points, including, inter-alia, (i) certified copies of all govt. orders/directions/rules pertaining to the appointment and functioning of Business Correspondent Agent and Ultra Small Branch and (ii) total number of Business Correspondent Agents Page 1 of 5 and Ultra Small Branches under the Madho Bigha Branch, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO has not provided the required information. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for and to impose a penalty upon the CPIO under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act and also recommend disciplinary action against the CPIO under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Pankaj Kumar Singh and the respondent Shri Amrendra Kumar, Senior Manager, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Regional Office, Nawada, Bihar attended the hearing through videoconferencing.
4. The appellant submitted that the CPIO vide letter dated 20.03.2017 denied information stating that it has been sought in a large number of points and also does not relate to the appellant. Further, the FAA vide letter dated 18.05.2017 provided incomplete information. On point nos. 1 and 2 of the RTI application the respondent merely referred to the RBI Circular no. RBI/2010- 11/217,DBOD,No.BL.BC.43/22.01.009/2010-11 without giving a copy of the same. On point nos. 3, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 of the RTI application he has sought information pertaining to details viz. names and address of the account holders and total number of accounts opened and closed, rules/guidelines pertaining to the opening and closing of the accounts and reasons for closing the accounts. However, the information sought, except the name and contact no. of 'Bank Mitra' Page 2 of 5 was denied to him under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. The information sought vide point nos. 4.4 and 4.6 was denied stating that it does not fall within the definition of 'information' as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
5. The respondent submitted that a point wise reply was provided to the appellant vide letter dated 18.05.2017. He stated that in response to point nos. 1 and 2 of the RTI application a copy of RBI circular was also provided to the appellant along with the said letter. The respondent further clarified that the reply dated 20.03.2017 was furnished by the then CPIO Shri Shubhendu Gupta (presently working as Chief Manager (Compliance) at Head Office, Patna) and hence he would not be able to explain as to why the information sought for was denied.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, notes that the CPIO vide letter dated 20.03.2017 wrongly denied the information sought for on the grounds that it does not relate to the appellant. The Commission observes that the information sought under the RTI Act, 2005 can be denied by the CPIO only under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and not otherwise. The Commission, thus, finds that Shri Shubhendu Gupta, the then CPIO obstructed in furnishing the information sought for to the appellant. The Commission, therefore, directs the Registry of this Bench to issue a Show Cause Notice to Shri Shubhendu Gupta, the then CPIO, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Regional Office, Nawada, Bihar for explaining as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against him. Shri Amrendra Kumar, Senior Manager, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Regional Office, Nawada, Page 3 of 5 Bihar shall ensure that a copy of this order is served upon Shri Shubhendu Gupta, the then CPIO, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Regional Office, Nawada, Bihar.
7. The Commission further observes that a point wise reply was provided by the FAA to the appellant vide letter dated 18.05.2017. However, the information sought on point nos. 3, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2, 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6 of the RTI application has been incorrectly denied as the rules/guidelines pertaining to the opening and closing of the accounts and statistical information i.e. total number of accounts opened or closed should have been disclosed. Further as per the appellant, copy of RBI circular pertaining to point nos. 1 and 2 of the RTI application has not been provided to him. The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent to provide information on point nos. 3, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2, 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6 of the RTI application as above said along with a copy of RBI circular, as referred by the FAA, with respect to point nos. 1 and 2 of the RTI application, to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भाग व) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date 27.08.2018 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोिह ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105682 / [email protected] Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:
1. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Regional Office, Lal Complex, Mangar Vigha More, Nawada, Bihar
2. Shri Pankaj Kumar Singh Page 5 of 5