Radha Raman Tiwari vs Bank Of Baroda on 3 December, 2021

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Radha Raman Tiwari vs Bank Of Baroda on 3 December, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 06.06.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through the RTI application dated 01.01.2019 and first appeal dated 15.02.2019:-

 Authenticated copies of TE bill/TA Bill and attendance register of Mr. A K Rakshit, Chief Manager, Zonal Office, Lucknow related to his Investigation Report dated 06.06.2016 - Examination of staff accountability in advance a/c of M/s. Mumtaz Trading Co. at Chamda Mandi Branch, Kanpur.

(i) Please furnish the authenticated copy of all the correspondences, including emails exchanged by Vigilance Department at Zonal Office, Lucknow with Page 1 of 7 Disciplinary Proceedings Department, BCC, Mumbai and/or Regional Office, Kanpur after the receipt of letter no. UPK/41/VIZ/252 dated 02.06.2015 and up to 04.06.2016 in this regard/matter.

(ii) Please provide the authenticated copies of travelling expenses bill/travelling allowance (TA) bill, claimed by Mr. A K Rakshit, and paid by the bank regarding his visit to Chamda Mandi Branch, Kanpur for carrying out the investigation (in terms of letter no. EUPZ/42/VIG/1672 dated 06.06.2016) and collecting - 41 - annexure.

(iii) Please provide authenticated copies of statements of account in which the travelling expenses bill, claimed by Mr. A K Rakshit, and paid by the bank regarding his visit to Chamda Mandi Branch, Kanpur for carrying out the investigation (in terms of letter no. EUPZ/42/VIG/1672 dated 06.06.2016) and collecting - 41 - annexure.

(iv) Please provide authenticated copies of muster roll attendance register for the month of June, 2016 of Mr. A K Rakshit, during his placement with Zonal Office, Lucknow.

(v) Please provide the authenticated copies of office order book/movement register of Zonal Office, Lucknow, evidencing his movement from Zonal Office, Lucknow to Chamda Mandi Branch, Kanpur and his reporting back to Zonal Office on 06.06.2018.

(vi) Please provide the authenticated copies of list of 41 annexure, as referred in piece of document, named and styled as "Report on examination of staff accountabiliy".

(vii) Please provide the authenticated copies of list and copies of all the annexures, submitted by Mr. Jafri with his investigation report dated 06th May, 2015, terming the complaint as non - maintainable and his reply dated 14.05.2018 in Page 2 of 7 reply to RO, Kanpur, letter no. UPK:41:REC:802 dated 8th May, 2015 regarding his "Investigation Report" dated 6th May, 2015.

(viii) Please provide the authenticated copies of document on the basis of which Mr. Rakshit could reach to conclusion that thus it is evident that Mr. Mumtaz Ahmad, proprietor of M/s Mumtaz Trading Co. has defrauded the Bank by apparently producing a fictions person as Mr. Miftaul Anwar before the Branch Officials for the execution of the documents and creation of mortgage and its extension on various dates, as mentioned on page no. 8 of piece of document, named and styled as "Report on examination of staff accountability".

(ix) Please inform the date/week/month/year on which it surfaced before/came to the cognizance of concerned authorities of Bank of Baroda that Mr. Rakshit has chosen to attribute the irregularities/lapses on the part of branch officers and branch heads only and was deliberately ignored the role and responsibilities of SMELF for ensuring the compliance of KYC norms of Mr. Miftaul Anwar, as required to be observed in terms of letter no.

BCC/PS/SME/99/114 dated 11th January, 2007 regarding "Operational and Administrative Guidelines"as mentioned in para no. D of background of information being sought under RTI Act, 2005.

(x) Please inform the course of action taken by the concerned authorities of Bank of Baroda after it surfaced before/came to their conginzance that Mr. Rakshit has chosen to attribute the irregularities/lapses on the part of Branch Officers and Branch heads only and has deliberately ignored the role and responsibilities of SMELF for ensuring the compliance of KYC norms of Mr. Miftaul Anwar, as required to be observed in terms of letter no. BCC/PS/SME/99/114 dated 11th January, 2007 regarding "Operational and Page 3 of 7 Administrative Guidelines"as mentioned in para no. D of background of information being sought under RTI Act, 2005.

(xi) Please provide the authenticated copies of documents, being referred as मृ यु माण प क स य ित दनांक 08.06.2016 को ा कया in application dated 11.07.2017, given by Mr. Islam, Sr. Branch Manager, Chamda Mandi Branch, Kanpur to Police Authorities to register criminal case against Mr. Mumtaz Ahmed Siddiqui, Mrs. Musharrat Siddiqui and Mr. Abdul Quddus and others as quoted in para no. H under the head background of information being sought under RTI Act, 2005.

(xii) Please provide the authenticated copy of instructions/orders issued by Competent Authority, in compliance to which the piece of document, being referred as मृ यु माण प क स य ित दनांक 08.06.2016 को ा कया in application dated 11.07.2017, given by Mr. Islam, Sr. Branch Manager, Chamda Mandi Branch, Kanpur to Police Authorities to register criminal case against Mr. Mumtaz Ahmed Siddiqui, Mrs. Musharrat Siddiqui and Mr. Abdul Quddus and others as quoted in para no. H under the head background of information being sought under RTI Act, 2005, was obtained.

(xiii) Please furnish the information regarding the name and designation of Executive/Officer of Bank of Baroda who obtained the piece of document, being referred as मृ यु माण प क स य ित दनांक 08.06.2016 को ा कया in application dated 11.07.2017, given by Mr. Islam, Sr. Branch Manager, Chamda Mandi Branch, Kanpur to Police Authorities to register criminal case against Mr. Mumtaz Ahmed Siddiqui, Mrs. Musharrat Siddiqui and Mr. Abdul Quddus and others as quoted in para no. H under the head background of information being sought under RTI Acta, 2005.

Page 4 of 7

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 01.01.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of Baroda, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 02.02.2019 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 15.02.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 18.03.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 06.06.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 06.06.2019 inter 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 vide letter dated 02.02.2019 stated that the information was related to authenticated copies of TE bill/TA bill and attendance register of Mr. A K Rakshit, Chief Manager of Zonal Office, Lucknow related to his investigation report dated 06.06.2016 - Examination of staff accountability in advance account of M/s Mumtaz Trading Company, at Chamda Mandi Branch, Kanpur. The CPIO further stated that in brief background of the facts of the case the appellant had referred various internal correspondence and based on which the appellant had sought information which were confidential in nature, personal & third party information and was part of investigation conducted in account of M/s Mumtaz Trading Company, the information sought was not in larger public interest rather in personal interest of the applicant. Hence it was denied. The FAA vide order dated 18.03.2019 upheld the CPIO's reply.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Girish Kumar, Assistant General Manager and Mr. Praveen Upadhyay, Law Officer, Bank of Baroda, Zonal Office, Lucknow attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he was satisfied with the reply given by the respondent on all the points except point nos. 2 to 5 of the RTI application. He further Page 5 of 7 stated that information sought was in larger public interest since Mr. A K Rakshit, Chief Manager, Zonal Office, Lucknow was ought to visit Chamda Mandi Branch of the respondent bank officially on 06.06.2021 for the purpose of investigation and submit the investigation report. He argued that it was not personal tour of the said employee, therefore, TA/TE bills claimed by him, muster roll attendance register for the month of June, 2016 of Mr. A K Rakshit and copies of office order book/movement register of Zonal Office, Lucknow, evidencing his movement from Zonal Office, Lucknow to Chamda Mandi Branch, Kanpur could not be covered as personal information of third party. He alleged that the said official had prepared a report without visiting the said branch and the appellant being affected party was entitled to know the truth. He simply wanted to confirm as to whether Mr. A K Rakshit had visited Chamda Mandi Branch on 06.06.2021 or not and if the answer was yes, the copy of TA bills and other details be given. Therefore, he requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the information on point nos. 2 to 5 of the RTI application.

5.2. The respondent while defending their CPIO's reply dated 02.02.2019 inter alia submitted that information sought pertained to third party employee, disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest. Hence, it was claimed exemption under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. Further, they stated that they were not sure as to whether any TE/TA bills were claimed by Mr. A K Rakshit, Chief Manager, Zonal Office, Lucknow or not.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that allegation of the appellant was that so called investigation report was prepared by Mr. A K Rakshit, Chief Manager, Zonal Office, Lucknow, without visiting the branch. He also alleged that he had not visited as claimed in the report. Therefore he was asking for the documents like TE bills, muster roll attendance register etc. Moreover, the appellant during the course of hearing submitted that he was punished on the basis of the investigation report prepared by Mr. A K Rakshit, Chief Manager, Zonal Office, Lucknow. Even if it is admitted that the person had not visited the branch does not prove that he had not submitted investigation report.

Page 6 of 7

As regards sanctity of the report, the same could be challenged if there was any procedural defect therein. However, the respondent could have given the information or better reply to the queries raised by the appellant under point nos. 2 to 5 of the RTI application. In view of the observations made above, the respondent is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide revised information/reply against point nos. 2 to 5 of the RTI application, 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: 02.12.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO : BANK OF BARODA ZONAL OFFICE LUCKNOW, BARODA HOUSE, V-23, VIBHUTI KHAND, GOMTI NAGAR, LUCKNOW - 226 010 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BANK OF BARODA, ZONAL OFFICE LUCKNOW, BARODA HOUSE, V-23, VIBHUTI KHAND, GOMTI NAGAR, LUCKNOW - 226 010 SH. RADHA RAMAN TIWARI Page 7 of 7

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission