Shammi Ahluwalia vs Department Of Financial Services on 20 December, 2021

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Shammi Ahluwalia vs Department Of Financial Services on 20 December, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 29.05.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through the RTI application dated 12.03.2019 and first appeal dated 15.04.2019:-

Referring to the respondent's letter F. No. 25-1-2018(102) - Vig. Of 31.12.2018 which the appellant had received, in response to his RTI application Regn. No. Page 1 of 7 DOFSR-R-2018-51513 dated 14.12.2018, the appellant sought the following information:

(i) From the documents received under the above said letter, it is clear that the query and reminders were addressed to the CVO of the Oriental Bank of Commerce. Why the replies are not from the CVO but from the General Manager of the Recovery and Law Dept. of the Bank.

(ii) By plain reading of paragraph nos. 3, 4, 5 of letter no. HO.R&L.Vig.-2018-19-

2430-12199 dated 03 Oct 2018 written to the respondent (MOF) by Oriental Bank of Commerce clearly proves that the bank was negligent in establishing the identity of the actual issuing Bank of the letter of credit. The bank accepts that their sanction letter was for LC issued by Royal Bank of Scotland then how come they negotiated export documents (with bill of exchange in the name of Royal Bank of Scotland) with different bank (RBS Alliance), without informing the beneficiary and against sanctity of their own sanction letter. Twisting the facts (in legal sense) it says the documents were sent to the proper bank. So why this aspect was not examined by you especially when what the bank has stated in the said letter is corroborative with what I have submitted in my letter of 06 December 2018 addressed to the Secretary, DFS.

(iii) Why the set of 13 documents, as evidence, submitted under the appellant's letter of 06 December, 2018 were not examined in the light of reply received from OBC Bank.

(iv) Why the case related to ICICI Bank has not been pursued. If it is being pursued give details of the steps taken by you to get the reply from ICICI bank concerning the complaint filed by me.

(v) Provide with the copy of all the noting on your file of DFS to know exactly why the above glaring observations were overloaded.

Page 2 of 7

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 12.03.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Department of Financial Services (DOFS), Parliament Street, New Delhi, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 29.03.2019 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 15.04.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 26.04.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 29.05.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 29.05.2019 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIOs were not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO, DOFS, vide letter dated 29.03.2019 replied that they had already provided copies of the correspondence in this regard with Oriental Bank of Commerce and Reserve Bank of India vide letter No. F. NO. 25/1/2018(102)-Vig. Dated 31.12.2018. Besides, the RTI application was transferred to CPIOs of OBC and RBI to provide status of the appellant's complaint. The FAA vide order dated 26.04.2019 stated that similar online appeal dated 23.01.2019 in respect of the RTI application dated 14.12.2018 was received from the appellant which was responded vide letter dated 15.02.2019.

5. The appellant along with his representative Shri Dinesh Gupta and on behalf of the respondent Shri Lokesh Chander Trehan, Under Secretary & CPIO, Department of Financial Services, Delhi, (Respondent No. 1) Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra, Dy. General Manager & CPIO and Shri Jaseem Siddiqui, Chief Manager (Law), Punjab National Bank, New Delhi (Respondent No. 2) attended the hearing in person and Shri Abhay Kumar, CPIO and Shri Arvind Kumar, Legal Officer, Reserve Bank of India, Bandra (Respondent No. 3) attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had filed a complaint with the Hon'ble Minister of State for Finance, dated 18.05.2018, for an investigation into the Criminal Page 3 of 7 Negligence &cover-up by the officials of the Oriental Bank of Commerce & ICICI Bank, while dealing with a Letter of Credit for USD1,000,000(USD one million)for export. The beneficiary in the Letter of Credit was the appellant's company M/s. P & R Overseas Pvt. Ltd. The office of the Hon'ble Minister forwarded the letter to the Secretary, Department of Financial Services, for an investigation into his complaint on 03.07.2018. Thereafter, he received a letter 03.10.2018 from OBC (now Punjab National Bank) refuting any wrong doings. Subsequently, he wrote a detailed letter on 22.10.2018 to the Secretary, Department of Financial Services, and sent him a set of 13 documents, evidencing Criminal Negligence and how the cover-up happened. However, he did not receive any response from the DFS, thereafter, he filed RTI application dated 14.12.2018 seeking the aforesaid information. However, the reply given by the respondent was incomplete and not satisfactory.

5.2. The respondent No. 1 (DFS) while defending their case inter alia submitted that a complaint dated 18.05.2018 was received from Shri Shammi Ahluwalia alleging that a case of Breach of trust, Criminal Negligence and Cover-up by officials of Oriental bank of Commerce Ltd (OBC) and ICICI Bank Ltd.(ICICI) while handling an Export Letter of Credit issued in favour of M/s P&R Overseas R/t. Ltd. (P&R Overseas), for USD 1 Million (Rs. 4.70 crores) for export of 1000 Mtns. of tomato paste. As the matter of grievance pertained to OBC and ICICI, the same was forwarded to CVOs of OBC and CGM of RBI for necessary action vide letter dated 27.11.2018. Further, after receipt of the RTI application, they had provided the requisite information and also transferred the RTI application to the CPIOs of OBC and RBI under Section 6 of the RTI Act to provide the status of investigation of the appellant's complaint dated 18.05.2018, to the applicant. They also stated that first appeal filed by the appellant was also disposed of by them.

5.3. The respondent No. 2 (Punjab National Bank) inter alia submitted that they had already provided information/documents with regard to status of complaint against erstwhile OBC bank.

Page 4 of 7

5.4. The respondent No. 3 (RBI) inter alia submitted that as regard to the status of the appellant's complaint they had completed the examination and closed the case on 21.12.2018. Further, they stated that they had provided all the documents related to the appellant's complaint after severing the personal information of third party.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observed that status of the appellant's complaint dated 18.05.2018 had been informed by the respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 3. Further, the respondent had provided copies of the correspondence in this regard with Oriental Bank of Commerce and Reserve Bank of India vide letter dated 31.12.2018. Perusal of the RTI application reveals that information sought on point nos. 1 to 4 of the RTI application were in the form of queries which may not fall squarely within the definition of "information" as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. Further, against point no. 5, the appellant sought copy of all the noting made by the respondent No. 1 (DFS) in respect of the appellant's complaint which should have been provided by the respondent. Accordingly, the respondent is directed the respondent no. 1 (DFS) to revisit the RTI application and provide revised information on point no. 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) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक/Date: 17.12.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत#) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 5 of 7 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO:

1.DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES VIGILANCE SECTION, 3RD FLOOR JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI - 110 001

2. THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, MANAGEMENT AUDIT & REVIEW DIVISION (RIGHT TO INFORMATION CELL) 2ND FLOOR, EAST WING (A), PLOT NO. 4, SECTOR -

10, DWARKA, HO: NEW DELHI -110075

3. THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, DEPTT.

OF BANKING SUPERVISION, CENTRAL OFFICE, CENTRE - 1, WORLD TRADE CENTRE, CUFFE PARADE, COLABA, MUMBAI - 400 005 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, DEPTT. OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, VIGILANCE SECTION, 3RD FLOOR JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, CPIO : DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES VIGILANCE SECTION, 3RD FLOOR JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI - 110 001

2. THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, MANAGEMENT AUDIT & REVIEW DIVISION (RIGHT TO INFORMATION CELL) 2ND FLOOR, EAST WING (A), PLOT NO. 4, SECTOR - 10, DWARKA, HO: NEW DELHI - 110075 Page 6 of 7

3. THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, DEPTT. OF BANKING SUPERVISION, CENTRAL OFFICE, CENTRE - 1, WORLD TRADE CENTRE, CUFFE PARADE, COLABA, MUMBAI - 400 005 PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI -110001 SH. SHAMMI AHLUWALIA Page 7 of 7

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission