Yogesh Kumar vs State Bank Of India on 22 February, 2021

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Yogesh Kumar vs State Bank Of India on 22 February, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 27.09.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 09.01.2018 and first appeal dated 01.05.2018:-

(i) Certified copy of personal accidental insurance(PAI) policy of Rs. 2 lacs in the name of Yogesh Kumar (appellant), which was signed by him as per the terms & conditions of the policy for deduction of Rs. 100/- from his saving account XXXXXXXXXX36.

(ii) Certified copy of Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana (PMSBY) in the name of Yogesh Kumar, which was signed by him in terms & conditions of the policy for deduction of Rs. 100/- from his saving account XXXXXXXXXX36.

Page 1 of 7

(iii) How many personal accidental insurance policy for the academic year 2013-

14,2014-15,2015-16,2016-17 & 01-04-2017 to 09-01-2018 by Sadar Bazar Branch(0596)? provide the year wise detail.

(iv) Provide the Name, Designation of the officer/official of Sadar Bazar Branch(0596), who was competent to make the transaction of the personal accidental insurance.

(v) How many proposals were received in Sadar Bazar branch (0596) in the academic year 2013-14,2014-15,2015-16,2016-17 & 01-04-2017 to 09-01-2018 from the saving account holder? provide the year wise detail.

(vi) If the officers/officials are made the PAI transaction without approval / consent of the customer then what action would be taken against them as per SBI Rule & Regulation & Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority guidelines?

(vii) How many transactions for personal accidental insurance & PMSBY made in account of Yogesh Kumar 30644147336 from 01-04-2013 to 09-01-2018?

(viii) How many transactions for personal accidental insurance & PMSBY were reverted in the account of Yogesh Kumar 30644147336 from 01-04-2013 to 09- 01-2018.

(ix) Provide the name of the employees along with their tenure in Sadar Bazar Branch (0596) from 01-04-2013 to 09-01-2018.

(x) Certified copy of blank policy form of personal accidental insurance (PAI) policy of Rs. 2 lacs and Pradhan Mantri SurakshaBima Yojana(PMSBY).

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 09.01.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Regional Business Office-II, New Delhi, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 13.02.2018 and 27.03.2018 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with this, the appellant filed first appeal dated 01.05.2018. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 02.06.2018 disposed of the first Page 2 of 7 appeal. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 27.09.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 27.09.2018 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was incomplete and evasive. 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 vide letter dated 13.02.2018 gave point-wise reply/information to the appellant. The FAA vide order dated 02.06.2018 directed the CPIO to provide proper information against point nos. 1 and 3 of the RTI application, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this RTI application. In compliance of the FAA's order the CPIO provided revised information on point nos. 1 and 3 of the RTI application vide letter dated 21.06.2018.

Hearing on 03.12.2020:

4.1. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Pankaj Chopra, Regional Manager and CPIO, State Bank of India, Delhi, attended the hearing through audio conference.

4.2. The Commission passed the following directions on 05.01.2021:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that reply given by the respondent was incomplete and evasive. Further, the respondent during the course of hearing submitted that hearing notice was not received by them. However, as per the record hearing notice dated 12.09.2020 was sent at the address of the CPIO, SBI, Regional Business office-1, Zonal Office, New Delhi which was forwarded by them to the concerned CPIO (RBO-1, Administrative office-1, New Delhi) vide letter dated 27.11.2020. Therefore, contention of the respondent that no hearing notice was received by their office is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Further, the respondent was not aware the facts and thus failed to assist the Commission properly in deciding the appeal. In view of this, the Commission directs the Registry of this Bench to issue show cause notice to Shri Pankaj Chopra, the present CPIO Page 3 of 7 and Shri Manoj Kakkar, the then CPIO, State bank of India, Regional Business office-1, Administrative Office-1, 11 Parliament Street, New Delhi, to show cause as to why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon each of them as per section 20 (1) of RTI Act for not furnishing the complete information. The present CPIO is under obligation to service copy of this order on the then CPIO and secure his explanation. A copy of the written explanations from both the CPIOs (the present well as the then CPIO) must reach to the Commission within three weeks. The respondent is also directed that complete revised point-wise reply/ information be made available to the appellant within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order."

Hearing on 18.02.2021:

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Pankaj Chopra, Asstt. General Manager, State Bank of India, Delhi, attended the hearing in person.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that proper reply/information was not provided by the respondent against point nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 of the RTI application. He stated that he sought information related to his account from which certain amount was deducted in the name of Personal Accidental Insurance (PCI) and Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana (PMSBY). They further contended that both the aforesaid insurances were taken without his consent and no documents were provided by the bank in this regard even after asking for the same under the provisions of the RTI Act. The appellant further submitted that the respondent had not complied with the directions of the Commission and that the deductions towards insurance amount continued till date without his consent.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the RTI application was pertaining to Sadar Bazaar and that Branch was not under their jurisdiction. Further, the CPIO submitted that he was not the concerned CPIO at the time when RTI application was filed. The respondent explained that the branch merged with SBI, New Colony Model Basti on 13.09.2020 which was under the jurisdiction of present CPIO. The case came into notice of the present CPIO at the time of CIC hearing and in compliance of the Commission's directions complete information was furnished on 02.02.2021 by speed post. Therefore, the CPIO requested the Commission to drop the show cause notice. The Page 4 of 7 respondent further stated which was made on auto-renewal basis under Prime Ministers Bima Yojana without his knowledge or consent, they would refund the full amount debited towards insurance. that since the appellant insisted upon that the deduction towards insurance amount

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, complete information sought was not provided by the respondent despite clear directions given by the Commission in its interim order dated 05.01.2021. The respondent had claimed that the deduction from the appellant's account was on auto-renewal basis and that the consent form taken during the opening of savings account was not available with them. The respondents have not brought any reasons in support of their claim that the consent form was not available. Besides, when confronted regarding the non-availability of the consent form the respondent offered to refund the insurance amount to the appellant. This reflects the negligence and mala fide on the part of the CPIOs. The respondent did not comply with the directions of the Commission and did not provide copy of the consent form to the appellant. The written explanations submitted by the CPIO were not satisfactory. Further, the then CPIO Shri Manoj Kakkar, the then CPIO, did not submit any written explanation in response to the show cause notice. In view of this, the Commission feels that both the CPIO are responsible for not furnishing complete information to the appellant even after lapse of three years from the date of filing of this RTI application. Accordingly, both the CPIOs (present as well as the then CPIO) are responsible for obstructing the administration of justice and also withholding the information with mala fide. Hence, they are liable under section 20 (1) of RTI Act. Accordingly in view of the liabilities attributable to the CPIOs, a penalty of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) may be imposed on Shri Manoj Kakkar, the then CPIO and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) may be imposed on Shri Pankaj Chopra, present CPIO. The penalty amount of Rs. 15,000/- shall be deducted from the salary of Shri Manoj Kakkar, the then CPIO, (in three equal instalments) and Rs. 10,000/- shall be deducted from salary of Shri Pankaj Chopra, present CPIO (in two equal instalments), by the Public Authority and paid by way of demand draft drawn in favour of "PAO, Page 5 of 7 CAT", New Delhi, forward the demand drafts addressed to the Deputy Registrar (CR- II), email: [email protected] Room No. 106, First Floor, Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi 110067. The first instalment of penalty amount should reach to the Commission by 20.04.2021 and the final instalment should reach the Commission by 20.07.2021. The Commission also directs the respondent to revisit the RTI application and provide copy of the locker room register after redacting third party information, within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With the aforementioned observation and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

                                                                              सुरेश चं ा)
                                                           (Suresh Chandra) (सु        ा
                                                                           सूचना आयु )
                                                Information Commissioner (सू
                                                                 दनांक/Date: 22.02.2021
Authenticated true copy

R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)

Addresses of the parties:
CPIO :
1. STATE BANK OF INDIA
Regional Business Office
02 Delhi Administrative
Office - 1, 4th Floor, DZO
Building, 11, Parliament
Street, New Delhi - 110 001
THE F.A.A, GENERAL MANAGER (NW-1),
STATE BANK OF INDIA,
10TH FLOOR, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, 11,
SANSAD MARG, NEW
DELHI - 110 001




                                                                                Page 6 of 7
 CPIO:
Sh. PANKAJ CHOPRA (C.P.I.O)
State Bank of India
Regional Business Office 02
Delhi Administrative Office-1,
4th Floor, DZO Building,
11 Parliament Street,
New Delhi-110001

 Sh. PANKAJ CHOPRA (C.P.I.O)
STATE BANK OF INDIA
Regional Business Office
02 Delhi Administrative
Office - 1, 4th Floor, DZO
Building, 11, Parliament
Street, New Delhi - 110 001
(for forwarding to the then C.P.I.O
Sh. MANOJ KAKKAR)


Sh. YOGESH KUMAR




                                      Page 7 of 7

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission