V. V. Subba Rao vs Bank Of India on 13 August, 2021

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

V. V. Subba Rao vs Bank Of India on 13 August, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 09.01.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 16.08.2018 and first appeal dated 09.11.2018:-

(i) Provide the names of the processing officer, recommending authority of clean over draft facility of Rs 50 lakhs sanctioned to Shri Chandu Dasaratha Ramaiah for contract works in March, 2011. Provide copy of the sanctioned proposal?

(ii) Provide the name of the official and department which had the custody of the copy of the stock register submitted to the investigation officer Mr S K Agarwal Page 1 of 9 on 06-01-2014 by the under signed and marked as ME-6 during regular inquiry proceedings from that day onwards till copy of the same was forwarded to South Vigilance, Chennai in May 2014.

(iii) Provide the CREC minutes which had dealt with the Term proposal of M/s Sri Hari Hara Vinayaka Cold storage for Rs 580 lakhs promoted by Mr Kumara Swamy guarantor in the account M/s Sri Hari Hara Cold storage after 31-03- 2013.

(iv) Provide copy of the proposal or departmental note approved by Credit Committee denying Term Loan proposal of M/s Sri Hari Hara Vinayaka Cold storage for Rs 580 lakhs submitted by CPC Guntur for Chenchupeta Branch?

(v) Provide the findings of Mr V M Kumar which had disclosed how many number of accounts and the aggregate value of stocks and the aggregate amount of the loans sanctioned in the WHR loans of M/s Sri Hari Hara Vinyaka Cold storage without supporting stocks.

(vi) Provide the copy of the draft FIR forwarded by Branch for vetting of the Zonal Office in the account M/s Sri Hari Hara Cold Storage?

(vii) Provide the departmental note approving filing of draft FIR with police instead of CBI, by the competent authority.

(viii) Provide the name of the organization (Chenchupeta Branch and or CPC Guntur) which had submitted the proposals of WHR loans under PSRS during the months May to September, 2012 and March, 2013? Provide the names of the processing officer, recommending and approving authorities.

(ix) Provide copy of the PSRS clearance memorandums or observations pointed out the lapses and irregularities addressed to CPC Guntur or Chenchupeta Branch for 2012 and 2013 sanctions.

Page 2 of 9

(x) Provide the date and name of the officer who had conducted credit inspection as on 31-03-2012 and 31-03-2013 and provide copies of the credit inspection reports?

(xi) Provide the name of the authority and members of the SZLCC which had closed the Credit Inspection reports of 31-03-2012 and 31-03-2013?

(xii) Provide the date of approval of legal memorandum approving filing of suit with DRT in the Term Loan account for construction of Cold storage unit in the name of M/s Sri Hari Hara Cold Storage?

(xiii) Provide the copy of the attachment petition filed with DRT and civil courts seeking attachment of land in the name of Mr Kumara Swamy on which he had proposed to construct new cold storage unit in the name M/s Sri Hari Hara Vinayaka Cold storage?

(xiv) Provide copy of ZO e-mail dated 13-05-2013 addressed to chenchupeta branch which had conveyed withdrawal of total facility which was mentioned in para 2 of special letter No 7 dated 05-12-2013.

(xv) Provide the reasons for non-reimbursement of medical expenses claim of V V Subba Rao which was submitted to Zonal Office for payment and still pending with the ZO.

(xvi) Provide the observations of the competent authority i.e. Zonal Manager who had closed the Special Auditors Report dated 21-12-2013? (xvii) Provide the date and copy of the minutes of ZACE which had recommended the closure of Special Letter No 7 dated 05-12-2013 and names of the members of ZACE.

(xviii) Provide copy of the recommendations of Andhra Pradesh Zone recommending 2/3 rd pension to Mr V V Subba Rao to competent authority? (xix) Provide copy of the show cause notice issued by AP Zonal Office for appropriation of the Gratuity towards loss suffered by bank if any in the Page 3 of 9 account M/s Sri Hari Hara Cold storage to Mr V V Subba Rao and or recommendations for the same submitted to competent authority? (xx) Provide the date of incorporation of the name of Mr K V Prasad in Agreed officers list and date of removal of his name from Agreed list of officers? (xxi) Provide date of major penalty order inflicted to Mr K V Prasad, the then officer in charge of CPC Guntur during 2011 and 2012 and for the fraud prior to 2011.

(xxii) Provide the names of the Chief Manager Credit and names of processing officer of Credit Department of AP Zone in the month of March, 2011 and June 2011 since the clean over draft facility and term loans were sanctioned in that period. (xxiii) Provide the exit steps taken by Zona Manager and DZM of Andhra Pradesh Zone and BDM Guntur, to exit from the account after withdrawal of the total facility of Rs 10 crores for the exposure sanctioned against WHRs of M/s Sri Hari Hara Cold Storage between 01-04-2013 to 31-03- 2015. (xxiv) Provide the date on which the mail dated 13-05-2013 withdrawing the total facility of Rs 10 crores approved against the WHRs issued by M/s Sri Hari Hara Cold Storage was forwarded to the then BDM Guntur? (xxv) Provide the Exit steps taken by the DZMs between 01-04-2012 and 31-05- 2015 to recover the over dues in the Term Loan account of M/s Sri Hari Hara Vinayaka Cold storage?

(xxvi) Provide the amount recovered from sale of stocks lying in M/s Sri Hari Hara Cold Storage after seizure of the same by police on 27-03-2014?

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 16.08.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of India, Suryabagh, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 12.09.2018 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with this, the appellant filed first appeal dated 11.10.2018 The First Appellate Authority did not pass Page 4 of 9 any order. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 09.01.2019 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 09.01.2019 inter alia on the grounds that he had been falsely framed in a fraud matter and terminated form his service and that he required the information in the interest of principles of natural justice. 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 replied vide letter dated 12.09.2018 that the appellant had submitted RTI application dated 11.06.2018 and had sought information regarding account of M/s Sri Hara Cold Storage of Chenchupeta Branch of Andhra Pradesh Zone for which he had got replies thereon. The respondent while relying upon the Commission's order dated 25.06.2016 in [CIC/AD/A/2013/001326] disposed of the RTI application without going into the merits. The FAA held that the appellant had sought information relating to one account of M/s Sri Hari Hara Cold Storage of Chenchupeta Branch etc. which was refused by the CPIO, hence, the same was upheld.

Hearing on 25.02.2021:

4.1. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Venkata Kaleswara Rao, Chief Manager (Law), Bank of India, Suryabagh, attended the hearing through video conference.

4.2. The Commission passed the following directions on 02.03.2021:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the respondent had rejected the RTI application without going into the merits and without responding to the queries in the RTI application. The respondent vide letter dated 2.09.2018 had communicated to the appellant that the information had already been provided vide letter dated 11.06.2018 and while relying upon the CIC's order dated 25.06.2016 that the RTI application being repetitive was refused. However, the respondent failed to produce any letter or reply which was written to the appellant Page 5 of 9 providing the information or the reply either in response to the earlier RTI application dated 11.06.2018 or the instant RTI application dated 16.08.2018. In view of the above, Mr. P.T.S.S.N. Sharma, present CPIO and Mr. M.G. Kulkarni, the then CPIO are show caused as to why action as per section 20 (1) of the RTI Act may not be initiated against each of them. The CPIO is given the responsibility to serve a copy of this order upon the aforementioned CPIOs and secure their written explanations before the next date of hearing. All written submissions must be uploaded on the Commission's web portal within 21 days."

Hearing on 12.08.2021:

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Venkata Kaleswara Rao, Chief Manager (Law), Bank of India, Shri Jejeswar Rao, CPIO (Vishakhapatnam), Shri M.G. Kulkarni, the then CPIO, Kolhapur, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent rejected the RTI application on baseless grounds. The appellant further submitted that the respondent gave reference to their earlier reply dated 31.07.2018 given to RTI application dated 11.06.2018 but a copy of the same was not enclosed along with their reply dated 12.09.2018 given in the present matter.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had filed an online RTI application dated 16.08.2018 wherein he had sought information regarding the account of M/s Hara Cold Storage of Chenchupeta Branch. The respondent further stated that the appellant had sought more or similar information regarding that account in another RTI application dated 11.06.2018 filed by him earlier and the same was replied to by the then CPIO of Vishakhapatnam Zone (Shri M.G. Kulkarni) through letter dated 31.07.2018. Therefore, they had relied upon that reply dated 31.07.2018 and disposed of the RTI application in the present matter through letter dated 12.09.2018 without visiting its merits.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observed that the reply given by the respondent was incomplete and ambiguous. Perusal of the reply dated 31.07.2018 relied upon by the Page 6 of 9 respondent revealed that the then CPIO Shri M.G.Kulkarni had responded to few of the queries of the RTI application dated 11.06.2018 and had forwarded the application to CPIO, National Banking Group-South, Chennai, for responding to the remaining points i.e. point nos 13,14,17,19,24,25 and 30 of the RTI application.

6.1 During the course of hearing, the CPIO failed to assist the Commission to ascertain as to whether the NBG South, Chennai, had responded to the RTI application dated 11.06.2018 forwarded by them and could not produce the reply on the points which were transferred to the NBG South Chennai. Therefore, in absence of the reply of aforementioned points, the reply dated 31.07.2018 relied upon by them to dispose of the RTI application dated 16.08.2018 in the present matter could not be said to be complete.

6.2 It may not be out of place to mention that assuming the respondent had appropriately responded to both the RTI applications claimed by them to be similar, they should have procured the requisite information from NBG South, Chennai and should have been in a position to ensure the Commission that response to all points in the RTI application was given to the appellant in both the RTI applications i.e. 11.06.2018 and 16.08.2018. Thus, till date the respondents have failed to produce any letter or reply which was written to the appellant providing the information or reply in response to the RTI dated 16.8.2018.

6.3 The contention of the respondent that they had provided information under their letter dated 31.7.2018 is misleading to the extent that some of the points i.e. the NBG South, remained unaddressed till date.

6.4 The respondent (the present PIO) may ascertain as to whether reply was given by the NBG South or not and thereafter furnish a consolidated reply/information. It is incumbent upon the CPIO to procure the information from NBG South, Chennai, and prepare a consolidated reply to the RTI application dated 11.06.2018 since the same was relied upon by the respondent to dispose of the RTI application dated 16.08.2018, and the same may be made available to the appellant along with uploading the same on the Commission's web portal within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

Page 7 of 9

Further, the proceedings for penal action under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act against the CPIOs in pursuance to the show cause notice dated 02.03.2021 are deferred and the same will be examined in the light of the revised reply of the respondent (CPIO) to the next date of hearing. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date:.12.08.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO : BANK OF INDIA, LEGAL DEPTT., D.No. 28-2-48, DASAPALLA COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, SURYABAGH, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH - 530 020 THE F.A.A, BANK OF INDIA, LEGAL DEPTT., D.No. 28-2-48, DASAPALLA COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, URYABAGH, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH - 530 020 CPIO : 1. SH. P.T.S.S.N SHARMA (C.P.I.O) BANK OF INDIA, LEGAL DEPTT., D.NO. 28- 2-48, DASAPALLA COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, SURYABAGH, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH - 530 020 Page 8 of 9

2. SH. P.T.S.S.N SHARMA (C.P.I.O) BANK OF INDIA, LEGAL DEPTT., D.NO. 28-

2-48, DASAPALLA COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, SURYABAGH, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH - 530 020 (FOR FORWARDING TO THE THEN C.P.I.O SH.

M.G. KULKARNI) SH.V. V. SUBBA RAO Page 9 of 9

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission