Central Information Commission
Rabindra Nath Padhy vs Indian Overseas Bank on 30 July, 2024
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/IOVBK/A/2023/105028
Rabindra Nath Padhy ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Indian
Overseas Bank, ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Chennai
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 27.10.2022 FA : 13.12.2022 SA : 30.01.2023
CPIO : 01.12.2022 FAO : 12.01.2023 Hearing : 19.07.2024
Date of Decision: 29.07.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.10.2022 seeking information on the following points:
(i) "Registered Posts sent to 4 complaints; "Complaint Receipt" acknowledged copies.
(ii) 2 rounds of registered posts sent to register their owning/disowning to complaint claims + return post copies of their confirmation/rejection/addresses unfound reasons."Page 1 of 5
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 01.12.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Information sought for is not available with church Road Branch.
Moreover, information sought for is not clear/specific."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.12.2022. The FAA vide order dated 12.01.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO and observed as under:
"The CPIO vide her reply doted 01.12.2022 has duly disposed the RTI Application under RTI Act, 2005. Moreover, information sought for is not available with our Church Road Branch. Further, information sought for is related to various complaint letters to various authorities on different dates, culling out of information would disproportionately divert the resources of public authority and the information denied under section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005. CPIO/FAA con provide only that information which is available and existing as on date of request under RTI Act,2005."
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 30.01.2023.
5. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Mahalakshmi, AGM & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The Commission at the outset remarked that the contents of the instant RTI Application or the material on record being incoherent in nature ought to be clarified by the Appellant. The Appellant sought to submit some arguments but none of it was comprehensible. Therefore, the Commission referred to the written arguments sent by the Appellant on 09.07.2024 stating inter alia as under:
"(1) According to the Bank's Human Resources Department, AGM letter no HRMD/SUP/177/.../2018-19 dated 05/09/2018 categorically confessed quote "On receipt of complaints from customers, a preliminary enquiry conducted" Unquote. This logically reveals after taking information held in custody a preliminary enquiry on 05/06/2018 conducted and enquiry report formed. Otherwise, the authority and church road branch Page 2 of 5 in question had no locus standi to conduct preliminary enquiry in gap / legal vacuum of non-existing / non custody to legally sourced customers' complaint resolution materials is the vital truth. On this strength criterion, the authority has disowned and contempt made to the Direction of the Honourable High Court of Orissa Order dated 10/08/2018 vide case no- WP(C)/14722/2018 however the same AGM as information custodian public authority never ever till now have voluntary dutiful supplied compulsorily under the Supreme Court various timed directions to all India public authorities regarding any of sourced bona fide information against employees / to me in respectful to my fundamental rights to (i) information under Article 19(1)(a) with (ii) equality process under Article 14
(iii) to safe guard my right to equality of opportunity in employment under Article 16(1) and (iv) appropriately right timing reasonable counter defence defended under Article 21 of Constitution., so aroused this RTI requesting, My Lord (2) He as employer, rather should have voluntarily/suo motu disclosed this information copy to me before 08/08/2018 under the mandate of Supreme Court of India in 2 reference cases of State Bank of Patiala Vs. Ram Niwas Bansal on 22nd May, 1998 laid the public rule of law "audi altrem partem" instrumental facet of Citizenry employee right to Constitutional Remedies under Article 14,16 to 18 not accurately and consistently followed. The Bank authority rather chosen to disown to same rule of law dictated in another reference case of Indu Bhushan Dwivedi vs. State of Jharkhand by Supreme Court Judgement date 05/07/2010, held the non-disclosure to be prejudice and unsustainable under Article 14,19 and 21 of Constitution. Here the HRMD authority and the Church Road branch Manager have not followed to voluntary bounden duty disclosure of legal customers complaint information sourced before 10/08/2018, the Supreme Court of India held to be element of prejudice in case of violation to maxim - audi alterm partem, the principle of public rule of law, the Supreme Court Lordship held to be one which doesn't need further proof of prejudice - is absolute denial of equity principle of natural justice, therefore offends to Article 14 is prejudice for official stopped to information. The Supreme Court in case of Keshav Mills Company limited Vs. Union of India held that on principle of 'authority duty to act fairly' but unfairly suppressed genuine information is- "unfair procedure is similar to unreasonable and arbitrary".Page 3 of 5
xxx And the CPIO habitually duty neglected to right timing accessing to the available, existing information from the HRMD AGM File letter date 0509/2018, so her unscrupulous denial is evasive, unfair pretence, arbitrary and offends to Article 19(1)(a) at inconsistent to Article 14 and is unsustainable under the principle of natural justice and is detrimental to public customers' interest and simultaneously defaming them and me as well. The FAA misplaced use of section 7(9) of the Act is redundant and obsolete and the CPIO could not reasonably understood, negligibly not accessed to specific information contents AGM letter date 05/09/2018 unnecessarily prolonged waste of time by unfairly not supplied information sought for..."
7. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that the Appellant through the instant RTI Application and the grounds of appeal as well as written submissions filed prior to the hearing has merely placed on record incoherent and unspecific written statements, that bear no explicit or implied meaning, whatsoever. For the said reason, the Commission does not find any infirmity in the reply provided by the CPIO.
9. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 29.07.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कन ल एस एस िछकारा ( रटायड ))
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Page 4 of 5
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
Indian Overseas Bank,
AGM & CPIO, RTI Cell, Law Department,
Central Office: Chennai, P. B. No.-3765,
763, Anna Salai, Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600002
2. Rabindra Nath Padhy
Page 5 of 5
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)