Central Information Commission
Ramesh Kumar Sehgal vs Canara Bank on 8 December, 2021
Author: Suresh Chandra
Bench: Suresh Chandra
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/CANBK/A/2019/645748
CIC/CANBK/A/2019/646074
Ramesh Kumar Sehgal ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Canara Bank
J C Road, Bengaluru ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 19.03.2019/ SA : 12.07.2019/
FA : 01.05.2019
26.03.2019 14.07.2019
CPIO : 15.04.2019/ FAO : 04.06.2019/
Hearing : 29.10.2021
26.04.2019 29.05.2019
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
SHRI SURESH CHANDRA
ORDER
(08.12.2021)
1. The issues arising in both the second appeals (CIC/CANBK/A/2019/645748CIC/CANBK/A/2019/646074 are similar. Therefore, it is felt desirable to pass a common order in both the appeals.
1.1 The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeals dated 12.07.2019 and 14.07.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 19.03.2019 and first appeal dated 01.05.2019:-
CIC/CANBK/A/2019/645748 There is no mention of withholding/adjustment of Bank Contribution of Provident Fund to the alleged loss caused to the Bank. At the time of his compulsory retirement as on 29.05.2008, Bank Contribution of Provident Fund Page 1 of 8 of Rs.6, 11, 884.17 was payable to him. In spite of him making several requests to the bank for payment of retrial dues such as Bank Contribution of Provident Fund, he had not been paid Bank Contribution of Provident Fund till date. Under RTI Act, 2005, he requested to provide him details of accounts towards which bank contribution of provident fund of Rs. 6,11,884.17 payable to him, had been adjusted.
CIC/CANBK/A/2019/646074 This has reference to Letter No. HRW IRS 20 1003 2019 dated 18.03.2019 of Canara Bank, Human Resources Wing, Industrial Relations Section, Head Office No.112, J C Road, Bengaluru as reply for his representation dated 22.02.2019. Under RTI Act, 2005, appellant requested to provide him the following certified information/documents:-
(i) Copy of the letter of the bank under which it was conveyed to him that his Gratuity and Bank Contribution to Provident Fund were forfeited/adjusted towards loss caused to the bank.
(ii) Details of loan accounts under which loss has been caused to the bank and that his Gratuity and Bank Contribution to Provident Fund were adjusted to such loan accounts.
(iii) Basis of his refunding of entire amount of the Bank Contribution to Provident Fund and interest accrued thereon and the differential portion of the PF received when Bank Contribution to the Provident Fund has not been paid to him.
2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant was compulsorily retired from service as a manager. The appellant claimed that there was no order of forfieture of his dues including GPF. Appellant further claimed that before adjusting or non-payment of dues he was not given any opportunity of hearing or written notice. Therefore, he filed applications Page 2 of 8 dated 19.03.2019/26.03.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Canara Bank, Bangaluru, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letters dated 15.04.2019/26.04.2019 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant filed first appeals dated 01.05.2019. The First Appellate Authority vide orders dated 29.05.2019/04.06.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed a second appeals dated 12.07.2019 and 14.07.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.
3. The appellant has filed the instant appeals dated 12.07.2019 and 14.07.2019 inter alia on the grounds that the respondent had deliberately withheld the information regarding loan accounts towards which bank contribution of Provident Fund of Rs. 6,11,884.17/- payable to him had been adjusted. 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 15.04.2019 which reads as under (in CIC/CANBK/A/2019/645748):
"As regards the information sought we wish to inform that the details of loan accounts were part of charge sheet dated 07.05.2007, orders of the Disciplinary Authority dated 26.05.2008 and orders of the Appellate Authority dated 27.12.2008 etc. issued to you. Further, your exit from the services of Bank was by way of punishment of Compulsory Retirement and your bank's contribution to Provident Fund was adjusted/forfeited by the bank towards loss caused to the bank due to your misconduct. Further W.P.No.1256/2011 filed by you challenging the punishment and WP No. 758/2015 challenging the orders of the Controlling Authority for payment of Gratuity Act 1972 are sub judice before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi."
The CPIO vide letter dated 26.04.2019 and the same is reproduced as under (in CIC/CANBK/A/2019/646074):
"(i) The information sought is available with you. As you are aware that your exit from the services of the Bank was by way of punishment of "Compulsory retirement"Page 3 of 8
and your Gratuity and Bank's contribution to Provident Fund was forfeited by the bank towards the loss caused to the bank due to your misconduct as per the provisions of the Service Regulations of the Bank. Further, W.P. No. 1256 of 2011 filed by you challenging the punishment and W.P.No. 7558/2015 filed by the bank challenging the orders of the Controlling Authority under payment of Gratuity Act 1972 are sub judice before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
(ii) The details of loan accounts were part of charge sheet dated 07.05.2207, orders of the Disciplinary Authority dated 26.05.2008 and the orders of the Appellate Authority dated 27.12.2008 etc. which was issued to you.
(iii) Information sought is in the nature of queries/reasons/clarification which does not fall within the purview of information as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act."
The FAA vide orders dated 29.05.2019 and 04.06.2019 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
Hearing on 07.09.2021 4.1. The appellant with representative Shri V.K. Khanna, Counsel attended the hearing in person and on behalf of the respondent Shri P.V.Hari, CPIO, Canara Bank, Bangalore, attended the hearing through video conference.
4.2 The Commission passed the following directions on 20.09.2021:
"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the respondent pointed out during the hearing that another second appeal (CIC/CANBK/A/2018/632873) arising out of the RTI application also filed by the appellant was disposed of by the Commission vide order dated 23.11.2020. It may be noted that the appellant filed a complaint for non-compliance (CNC) against non-compliance of order dated 23.11.2020 which is also posted for hearing by the Registry of this Bench along with issuing of show cause notice. Therefore, for the sake of brevity and non-duplication, the matters i.e. CNC in CIC/CANBK/A/2018/632873 and the present appeal (CIC/CANBK/A/2019/645748) be posted and heard together. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned."Page 4 of 8
CIC/CANBK/A/2019/646074 The Commission passed the following directions on 20.09.2021:
"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the respondent pointed out during the hearing that another second appeal (CIC/CANBK/A/2018/632873) arising out of the RTI application also filed by the appellant was disposed of by the Commission vide order dated 23.11.2020. It may be noted that the appellant filed a complaint for non-compliance (CNC) against non-compliance of order dated 23.11.2020 which is also posted for hearing by the Registry of this Bench along with issuing of show cause notice. Therefore, for the sake of brevity and non-duplication, the matters i.e. CNC in CIC/CANBK/A/2018/632873 and the present appeal (CIC/CANBK/A/2019/646074) be posted and heard together. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned."
Hearing on 29.10.2021
5. The appellant attended the hearing in person and on behalf of the respondent Shri P.V.Hari, CPIO, Canara Bank, Bangalore, attended the hearing through video conference.
5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the CPIO had not provided the requested information and had replied that the details of loan accounts were part of charge sheet dated 07.05.2007, order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 26.05.2008 and orders of the Appellate Authority dated 27.12.2008, etc. issued to him. Further, the appellant stated that his exit from the services of the bank was by way of punishment of Compulsory Retirement and his contribution to provident Fund was adjusted/forfeited by the bank towards loss caused to the bank due to his alleged misconduct. The appellant insisted upon the respondent for providing the specific orders for adjustment of gratuity, bank contribution and leave encashment as the order of punishment was silent on adjustment of pensionary benefits. The appellant sought information relating to the details of loans towards which bank contribution of Provident Fund of Rs. 6,11,884/- payable to him had been adjusted/forfeited. The appellant submitted that the loan accounts mentioned in the charge sheet had been recovered/closed by initiating the recovery process by Canara Bank Jind Page 5 of 8 Haryana Branch to which those loan accounts pertained to. The respondent instead of providing the requisite information was deviating from the relevant issue by mentioning the details of writ petition filed before Delhi High Court.
5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the respondent in compliance of the Commission's order dated 23.11.2020 inter alia informed that the concerned department had issued charge sheet no. IRS DP CHC DC CS 06/2007 dated 07.05.2007 dated 07.05.2006 for various irregularities on his part and thereafter Inquiring Authority submitted their findings holding him guilty of the charges and causing a loss of Rs. 3.25 crores to the bank. The respondent quoted Regulation 19 of the Staff Provident Fund Regulations:
"If a member causes financial loss to the bank by misconduct, fraud, gross negligence or other conduct of like nature and is dismissed from the service of the bank or is permitted to leave the service of the bank in consequence of such misconduct, fraud, gross negligence or other like conduct, the amount of such financial loss sustained by the bank shall be deducted by the trustees from the bank's contribution out of the amount due to the member and be paid to the bank."
They further submitted that in terms of the above regulations their Delhi Circle Office informed the Staff Provident Fund Section, and the entire bank contribution of PF was adjusted towards loss caused to the bank. There was no specific order in that regard. In respect of the details/documents of loans towards which Bank contribution to provident fund of Rs.611884.17/- was adjusted were more than 10 years old and the same could not be traced by the concerned department. Further, the appellant had hypothetically sought the information without giving specific details of the accounts.
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, noted that the respondent while adjusting the amount of Rs. 6,11,884.17/- which was the bank's contribution to Provident Fund had not issued a separate order or show caused the appellant before effecting adjustment/recovery. The Page 6 of 8 respondent brought out the Regulation 19 of the Staff Provident Fund Regulations and denied existence of any specific order as referred to by the appellant in his RTI application. However, they admitted that there was a communication by their Delhi Circle Office to the Staff Provident Fund Section in that regard. If the appellant is aggrieved by not issuing show cause before adjustment of bank's contribution towards his Provident Fund etc., he could seek redressal before an appropriate judicial forum. In view of the above, the respondent is directed that they may file an affidavit before the Commission to the effect that the information sought in the RTI application was not traceable due to lapse of over ten years and a copy of the same may be made available to the appellant within two weeks from date of receipt of this order. With these observations and directions, the appeals are 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: 08.12.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 7 of 8 Addresses of the parties:
CPIO : CANARA BANK HEAD OFFICE (ANNEX), L.I.C BUILDING, 113, J.C. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE (ANNEX), L.I.C BUILDING, 113, J.C. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002 SH. RAMESH KUMAR SEHGAL Page 8 of 8