Sanjeev Mehndiratta vs State Bank Of India on 25 July, 2020

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Sanjeev Mehndiratta vs State Bank Of India on 25 July, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 27.11.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 01.04.2018 and first appeal dated 28.06.2018:-

Page 1 of 6

Mr. Haridas K.V. now DMD of State Bank of India was previously posted as CGM in earlier State Bank of Patiala (e-SBP), in this connection provide following information.

(i) Name of the parent erstwhile Associate Bank where Mr. Haridas K.V joined bank service.

(ii) Exact date of his joining in e-SBP and role entrusted to him as CGM.

     (iii)     Date of interview from CGM to DMD.
     (iv)      Number of members of interview committee in which above named was
               promoted as DMD.
     (v)       Detail of members of interview committee i.e. their name, position they

were holding in Government, RBI, and SBI or at any other institution at the time of interview.

(vi) Criteria or promotion to such senior position (i) performance (ii) seniority

(iii) any other achievements i.e. one or all of the above.

(vii) Whether Promotion from CGM to DMD of SBI was from pool of SBI and erstwhile while subsidiaries or from all five erstwhile subsidiaries or from individual subsidiary.

(viii) Date of promotion to DMD.

     (ix)      Date of relieving from e-SBP.
     (x)       Date of joining as DMD at SBI Corporate office, Mumbai.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 01.04.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Corporate Centre, Madame Cama Road, Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letters dated 23.04.2018 and 23.05.2018 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with Page 2 of 6 this, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 28.06.2018. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 23.07.2018 disposed of the first appeal. In compliance of FAA's orders, the CPIO further replied on 1.9.2018. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 27.11.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 27.11.2018inter alia on the grounds that the reply given by the CPIO on point nos. 6 and 7 of the RTI application was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information on point nos. (6) and(7) of the RTI application and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 23.04.2018 transferred the RTI application to the CPIO, SBI, Corporate Centre, Mumbai for providing information directly to the appellant. Subsequently, the CPIO vide letter dated 23.05.2018 denied the information on point nos. (1) to (5) and (8) to (10) of the RTI application under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act and further transferred the RTI application for query no. (6) & (7) of the RTI application to the CPIO, SBI, Corporate Centre, Mumbai. The FAA vide order dated 23.07.2018 directed the CPIO & DGM, (Associate & Subsidiaries) to provide all such information which could be provided as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Accordingly, the CPIO & DGM, (Associate & Subsidiaries), vide letter dated 01.09.2018 provided revised point- wise information to the appellant.

5. The appellant attended the hearing through audio conference and the respondent's mobile number was not reachable.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had received the complete information except on point nos. (5) and (6) of the RTI application. He contended that the names of the members of interview committee as sought on point no. (5) of Page 3 of 6 the RTI application was not provided by the respondent by claiming under section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act. He stated that members of the interview committee were mostly public servants and their names should have been given in public domain. He also contended the reply given by the respondent on point no. (6) of the RTI application was misleading.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the appellant and perusal of records, notes that partial information on point no. (5) of the RTI application has been furnished and only names of the members of interview committee was denied by the respondent under section 8 (1)(g) of the RTI Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 9052 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20217 of 2011 Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr.) has made the following observation:

"29. Now, the ancillary question that arises is as to the consequences that the interviewers or the members of the interview board would be exposed to in the event their names and addresses or individual marks given by them are directed to be disclosed. Firstly, the members of the Board are likely to be exposed to danger to their lives or physical safety. Secondly, it will hamper effective performance and discharge of their duties as examiners. This is the information available with the examining body in confidence with the interviewers. Declaration of collective marks to the candidate is one thing and that, in fact, has been permitted by the authorities as well as the High Court. We see no error of jurisdiction or reasoning in this regard. But direction to furnish the names and addresses of the interviewers would certainly be opposed to the very spirit of Section 8(1)(g) of the Act.........".

Perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India supra, it makes it clear that names of the members of interview committee has been rightly Page 4 of 6 denied by the respondent under clause (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the RTI Act. Perusal of the records reveals that information sought on point no. 6 of the RTI application has been furnished by the respondent vide letter dated 01.09.2018. In view of this, the Commission feels that due reply/information has been given by the respondent and there appears no public interest in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 13.07.2020 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 CADRE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT CORPORATE CENTRE, STATE BANK BHAWAN, MADAME CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI - 400021

2. STATE BANK OF INDIA ASSOCIATES & SUBSIDARIES DEPTT., CORPORATE CENTRE, 4TH FLOOR, STATE BANK BHAWAN, MADAME CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 021 THE F.A.A,& CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER(HR), STATE BANK OF INDIA, CADRE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, CORPORATE CENTRE, STATE BANK BHAWAN, MADAME CAMA Page 5 of 6 ROAD, MUMBAI - 400021 SANJEEV MEHNDIRATTA Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission