Anirudh Dhanda vs State Bank Of India on 25 October, 2022

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Anirudh Dhanda vs State Bank Of India on 25 October, 2022

Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta

                           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/SBIND/A/2021/601044

Mr. Anirudh Dhanda                                 ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                   VERSUS
                                   बनाम
                                                   ... ितवादी/Respondent
CPIO
State Bank of India
P&E Department, Local Head Office
Sec-17A, Chandigarh-160017

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-

RTI : 11-11-2020            FA     : 17-12-2020         SA       : 20-01-2021
                                                        Hearing : 22-08-2022
CPIO : 10-12-2020           FAO : 16-01-2021
                                                        & 19-10-2022

                                  ORDER

1. The above said matter was listed on 22.08.2022, wherein the Commission made the following observations:-

"The Commission further adjourns the present matter as concerned CPIO of Chandigarh circle is not present in the hearing today."

2. In view of the above, the matter was thus adjourned and listed today for further hearing.

Hearing:

3. The appellant attended the hearing through video-conferencing. The respondent, Shri Malkhan Singh, CPIO/ AGM attended the hearing through video-conferencing.

Page 1 of 3

4. The respondent has submitted their written submission and the same has been taken on record.

5. The appellant submitted that the desired information has not been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 11.11.2020. He further submitted that the information sought pertains to Chandigarh Circle only, still the respondent without application of mind had transferred the instant RTI application to 21 Departments.

6. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 10.12.2020, they have provided a point-wise reply to the appellant vide which in response to point no. 1 of RTI application, they have replied "NIL" and in response to point nos. 2 & 3 of RTI application, they have replied "Not Applicable." He further submitted that relevant reply as per their records had later been provided by LHO Chandigarh vide their letter dated 10.12.2020.

Decision:

7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought details of the cases of contempt proceedings pending against SBI officials before Punjab and Haryana High Court being defended by Chandigarh Circle and other queries related thereto. The respondent has contended that the notices in contempt proceedings are received directly at AO (s), RBO (s) & Branches, therefore the record of the same remains available with them and accordingly the application was transferred to all AO (s) by the then CPIO for direct disposal at their end. He has further contended that they had no malafide intention of obstructing the information to the appellant. It has been observed that the available information pertaining to LHO Chandigarh has already been furnished to the appellant vide their letter dated 10.12.2020. It has further been observed that in response to point no. 1 of RTI application, the respondent has informed the appellant that there is only one case of contempt proceedings pending against SBI officials before Punjab and Haryana High Court. Similarly, in response to point no. 2 of RTI application, the appellant had been informed that Bank is bearing the cost of defending such cases. Moreover, w.r.t point no. 3 of RTI application, the appellant had been informed that no such instructions available under the title, "Permission for defending court cases against officers in their personal name/ title at the Bank's expenses."

Page 2 of 3

8. In light of the above observations, the Commission is of the opinion that a categorical reply has already been provided by the respondent vide their letter dated 10.12.2020 well within stipulated time period as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Since, the CPIO had transferred the instant RTI application to various Departments unmindfully, therefore the Commission issues strict warning to the CPIO for transferring the RTI application without application of mind and for not applying the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 appropriately. The Commission cautions the CPIO to be more careful in future while dealing with the matters related to the RTI Act, 2005.

9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज कु मार गु ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date : 19-10-2022 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा), Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682) Addresses of the parties:

1. CPIO State Bank of India P&E Department, Local Head Office Sec-17A, Chandigarh-160017

2. Mr. Anirudh Dhanda Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission