Central Information Commission
.Smt. Naurati Devi vs Banking Division on 23 July, 2010
Central Information Commission
Complaint No.CIC/SM/C/2008/00089
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (18)
Dated: 23 July 2010
Name of the Complainant : Smt. Naurati Devi
Redcross Hospital Baluvakot,
Post - Baluvakot (Dharchula),
Distt - Pittorgarh (Uttrakhand).
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Bank of Baroda,
Sitarganj Road, Khatima,
Distt Udhamsingh Nagar,
Uttrakhand.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri C.S. Pandey, Senior Branch Manager was present.
2. In our order dated 7 June 2010, we had directed the Branch Manager concerned to appear before us and explain the reasons for not taking any action on the RTI application received by him in the Branch nor forwarding it to the designated CPIO in time. During the hearing today, the said Branch Manager, Shri C.S. Pandey, appeared and admitted that although he had not given any written reply to the RTI application, he had verbally informed her about the status of all her queries. He submitted that since the deceased employee was the daughterinlaw of the Applicant and was known to him in the Branch, therefore, he thought it fit to invite her to his office and provided the information verbally. He admitted that he should have done so in writing.
3. He further submitted that being in a rural Branch, he had no clear idea about how to go about dealing with the RTI applications and submitted that the Bank had not really organised any training nor had given clear instructions to the Branch Manager on how to go about dealing with RTI applications. He extended unconditional apologies for not having given any written information to the RTI Complainant and assured that he would abide by the provisions of the law in future in dealing with such cases.
4. Having carefully considered the submissions of the Branch Manager concerned, we are of the view that he could be held partially responsible in the circumstances for not providing any written information to the RTIapplicant. Part of the reason for the Branch Manager's failure to deal with the application can be clearly attributed to the fact that the Bank had not conducted any training programme to make the Branch Managers aware about their role and responsibility under the RTI Act. In view of this, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met if a penalty of Rs.10,000/ is imposed on him for his role in this case.
5. We direct the designated CPIO to ensure that this penalty is deducted from the salary of Shri C.S. Pandey in 5 equal monthly instalments of Rs.2,000/ each and sent to Shri Vijay Bhalla, Assistant Registrar, Central Information Commission, Room No. 8, Old JNU Campus, New Delhi, by way of a demand draft drawn in favour of the 'PAO, CAT', payable at New Delhi.
6. The Commission ordered accordingly.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Assistant Registrar