Giri Umakant Ashok vs Bank Of India on 6 December, 2022

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Giri Umakant Ashok vs Bank Of India on 6 December, 2022

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 15.01.2020 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 07.09.2021 and first appeal dated 04.10.2021:-

(i) How many days does it take the branch or the concerned senior department to take action against the officer against whom the complaint has been lodged?

(ii) Why action is not taken against the concerned branch as per the complaint sent by ACBCBI to the concerned

(iii) Department for redressal of grievances? What is their prescribed period.

Page 1 of 5

(iv) When all the documents have been fulfilled, it is clear that the concerned senior divisional officer is deliberately wrong, why action is not being taken against the concerned officers.

(v) Why is there a delay in taking legal action against the concerned when a complaint is lodged in the senior office regarding every wrong answer given by the branch?

(vi) A copy of the action taken regarding the complaint number CA1222020 / A00142 sent to the office of Mumbai Chief Vigilance Officer through ACBCBI PUNE on 09/12/2020 should be given.

(vii) A copy of the action taken regarding the complaint number CA1222020 / A00189 sent to the office of the Mumbai Chief Vigilance Officer through ACBCBI PUNE on 25/01/2020 should be given.

(viii) Copy of the action taken regarding the complaint number CA1222021 / A00154 sent to the office of the Mumbai Chief Vigilance Officer through ACBCBI PUNE on 23/08/2021.

(ix) If there is any written complaint as well as confirmation of any complaint against the concerned authorities, is there a specific time frame for taking action?

(x) If all the true information about the misinformation given by the concerned department is mentioned in the documents and presented to the senior officer i.e. Chief Vigilance Officer, Mumbai, then who is solely responsible for making the right decision after checking the relevant documents.

(xi) Does the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Bank take action against the concerned officers through the court against the senior divisional officers who are backing the concerned officers after all the submissions have been made against the officers of the branch as a whole?

Page 2 of 5

(xii) Does the Chief Vigilance Officer have to receive a letter from someone special to take action on the entire information as well as the concerned officers that they are only ordered to go to sleep with their eyes open.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 07.09.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of India, Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 04.10.2021 replied to the appellant. Aggrievedby the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 04.10.2021. The First Appellate Authority(FAA) vide order dated 15.11.2021 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved bythat, the appellant filed second appeal dated 15.01.2020 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 15.01.2020 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 04.10.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:-

"It is observed that you have sought information on various points relating to your grievances. Please note this is not a Grievance Redressal Portal and the cases are decided on the basis of merits of the case. We have forwarded your RTI application to the concerned functional department and based on their reply, we reply to the queries stated in your application in seriatim as under:

Point no. (i) & (ix) It depends upon case to case basis and merits of the case whether action to be initiated or not.

Point no. (ii) to (viii) As mentioned earlier we are not a Grievance Redressal Portal, therefore, we cannot comment on it. However your complaint was replied vide ref. no. SZO/2021-22/50 dated 17.09.2021 and the complaint was closed accordingly.

Page 3 of 5

Point no. (x) to (xii) It is observed that information sought is not clear and specific and in the nature of query. Further, it is observed that you not any information as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Under the provisions of the RTI Act, a Public Authority is expected to provide only available information that are not exempted from disclosure under section 8(1) of the RTI Act and is not expected to any query, give clarification or explanation on the queries stated in the application."

The FAA vide order dated 15.11.2021 agreed to the reply given by the CPIO.

5. The appellant attended the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Shri Madhvendra Yadav, Chief Manager(Law), Bank of India, Mumbai, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he wanted to know the procedure of taking action against the concerned officer against whom the complaint was filed. He further submitted that a misleading reply was provided by the respondent and hence he was not satisfied with the information provided by the respondent.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that although the queries sought in the instant RTI application were more in the nature of seeking redressal of his grievance, still they had provided a categorical reply to each and every query and tried to provide relevant information to the appellant by going beyond the scope of section 2 (f) of RTI Act, 2005.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that due reply was given by the respondent vide letter dated 04.10.2021. Perusal of the RTI application revealed that although the information sought from point nos. 1 to 12 of RTI application were more in the nature of seeking clarifications/ questions which were not maintainable under the ambit of RTI Act, 2005, still the respondent had informed the action taken on his complaint and broad outcome thereof vide their letter dated 17.09.2021. Further, instead of seeking information in material form, the appellant was raising hypothetical queries Page 4 of 5 which were not specific or definite, hence the same did not fall squarely within the definition of "information" as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. Moreover, the appellant failed to controvert the averments made by the respondent and further agitate the matter. Hence, the submissions of the respondent were taken on record. In view of the above, the Commission is of the opinion that there is no public interest in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक/Date: 05.12.2022 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत#) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

The CPIO Bank OF India RTI Cell, Legal Department, 4th Floor, EAST Wing, Star House, C-5, G-Block,Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(EAST), Mumbai-400051 The FAA Bank OF India RTI Cell, Legal Department, 4th Floor, EAST Wing, Star House, C-5, G-Block,Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(EAST), Mumbai-400051 Shri Giri Umakant Giri, Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission