Deepa Rani vs Indian Bank on 28 November, 2022

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Deepa Rani vs Indian Bank on 28 November, 2022

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 29.05.2021 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 14.01.2021and first appeal dated 28.02.2021:-

Information regarding Pradeep Sachdeva (PF No. **555) S/o Gian Chand Sachdeva, posted as Branch Manager, Indian Bank (erstwhile Allahabad Bank), Pinjore Branch, Zonal Office, Chandigarh. The applicant is legally wedded wife of Pradeep Sachdeva.

(i) Provide detail and attested copies of all applications, letters & affidavits submitted in Indian Bank (erstwhile Allahabad Bank) at Branch level (Pinjore & Tilhar), Zonal Office level (Chandigarh & Sitapur), Head/Corporate Office Page 1 of 5 level (Chennai & Kolkata) from dated 15.03.2015 to 31.12.2020 in the name of applicant i.e. Deepa Rani/Deepa Arora w/o Pradeep Sachdeva (PF No. **555), Indian Bank (erstwhile Allahabad Bank), Pinjore Branch, Zonal Office, Chandigarh as the information is necessitate in the court matters because Pradeep Sachdeva has moved many forged applications, letters and affidavits, in your institution (facts based on proofs), in the name of applicant, by forging her signatures, for the purpose to cheat with your institution as well as the Hon'ble Courts.

(ii) Provide detail and attested copies of the medical prescriptions, medical bills & reimbursement, claimed by Pradeep Sachdeva & paid by Indian Bank (erstwhile Allahabad Bank) to her husband namely Pradeep Sachdeva (supra), for his impotency treatment from dated 15.03.2015 to 31.12.2020.

(iii) Provide detail and attested copies of the medical prescriptions, medical bills & reimbursement, claimed by Pradeep Sachdeva & paid by Indian Bank (erstwhile Allahabad Bank) to her husband namely Pradeep Sachdeva (supra), for treatment of his father Gian Chand Sachdeva, his mother Sudesh Rani Sachdeva, his brother Kumar Gaurav Sachdeva, bhabhi Neelu Monga, his nephew & niece Simar Sachdeva & Aarti Sachdeva who all live with him and are dependent on him, from dated 15.03.2015 to 31.12.2020.

(iv) Provide detail and attested copies of the applications, letters, proposals, file notings & correspondence made, in regard to transfer of Pradeep Sachdeva, in the month of June, 2015 from Chandigarh Zone to Sitapur Zone and again from Sitapur Zone to Chandigarh Zone as the information is necessitate in the court matters because Pradeep Sachdeva has moved many forged applications, letters and affidavits, in your institution (facts based on proofs), in the name of applicant, by forging her signatures, for the purpose to cheat with your institution as well as the Hon'ble Courts.

Page 2 of 5

(v) Provide detail and attested copies of the applications, letters, proposals, file noting& correspondence made, in regard to lease amount and lease agreement of Pradeep Sachdeva, concerning his accommodation at Pinjore & Tilhar from dated 15.03.2015 to 31.12.2020, as the information is necessitate in the court matters because Pradeep Sachdeva has moved many forged applications, letters and affidavits, in your institution (facts based on proofs), in the name of applicant, by forging her signatures, for the purpose to cheat with your institution as well as the Hon'ble Court.

(vi) Provide detail and attested copies of salary slips, annual salary statements and Form 16 & Form No. 16 A of Pradeep Sachdeva from dated 15.03.2015 to 30.12.2020 and Income Tax Returns filed by him for AY 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 as the information is necessitate in Court matters.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 14.01.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indian Bank, Chennai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 12.02.2021 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 28.02.2021. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 22.03.2021 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 29.05.2021 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 29.05.2021 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. 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 12.02.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:-

Page 3 of 5

"In this regard we inform you that the information sought is not relating to you, or not involving any public activity or interest, and/or as the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual, the information sought is exempted under Section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act. Hence no information provided. However, the monthly gross salary of Mr. Pradeep Sachdeva is Rs. 91942.36."

The FAA vide order dated22.03.202 provided revised reply and the same is reproduced as under:-

(i) Available information was already provided by CPIO vide letter CO:CSC:RTI:5144:2020-21 dated 06.07.2020. Other than these documents no other documents is available either at Zonal Office Chandigarh or at Zonal Office Sitapur of erstwhile Allahabad Bank.

(ii), (iii), (v) & (vi) The information sought relates to Mr. Pradeep Sachdeva. Hence information sought is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act (as it would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual and does not involve larger public interest.

(iv) No document signed in the name of appellant is available at Zonal Office, Chandigarh or at Zonal Officer Sitapur of erstwhile Allahabad Bank.

5. The appellant attended the hearing through audio conference and on behalf of the respondent Ms. Sreeja Rani, Chief Manager, Indian Bank, Chennai, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that hearing notice was received just one day before the hearing and she did not get time to prepare the case. Therefore, she requested for adjournment.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had already provided point-wise reply as per the provisions of the RTI Act.

Page 4 of 5

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the appellant submitted that she did not get proper time to prepare the case due to late receipt of hearing notice. Accordingly, she requested for adjournment and the respondent raised no objection. In view of the principles of natural justice parties may be given fair opportunity to represent their case and accedes to the appellant's request seeking adjournment. The matter is adjourned.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक/Date: 23.11.2022 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत#) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

The CPIO Indian Bank Head office, No. 66 Rajaji Salai, Chennai, Tamilnadu - 600001 The FAA Indian Bank Head office, No. 66 Rajaji Salai, Chennai, Tamilnadu - 600001 Ms Deepa Rani, Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission