Rekha Nellypally vs Union Bank Of India on 30 January, 2020

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Rekha Nellypally vs Union Bank Of India on 30 January, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 03.04.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through her RTI application dated 09.01.2018 and first appeal dated 12.02.2018:-

Page 1 of 5

The appellant an employee of the respondent bank and working as Chief Manager, in SD Road branch, Secunderabad participated in the promotion process during the year 2016-17 from Scale IV to Scale V. During this process Bank had given exemption in 3 year Branch Head service requirement vide staff circular no:6511 dated 23.12.2016. In this connection, the following information has been sought:

 details of the Board approval along with justification for giving exemption with regard to 3 years Branch head service. (which was declared vide staff circular no: 6511 dated 23.12.2016).

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 09.01.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Union Bank of India, Central Office, Nariman Point Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 31.01.2018. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 12.02.2018. The First Appellate Authority did not pass any order. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 03.04.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 03.04.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the exemption claimed by the CPIO was wrong. The appellant has requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information immediately and award him compensation for the delay in furnishing the information.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 31.01.2018, replied that information sought was internal documents of the bank and disclosure of which affect commercial confidence of the bank, hence, could not be furnished under clause (d) of sub section (1) of section 8 of the RTI Act. The FAA did not pass any order.

Page 2 of 5

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri K C Choudhary, Assistant General Manager & CPIO, Union Bank of India, Bandra, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that misleading and vague reply was provided by the respondent. The appellant alleged that as per RBI promotion policy of 2012, relaxations were applicable only till the year 2016. Hence, she specifically sought for the justification of Board approval for the relaxation given in the 3 years Branch Manager Service for the promotion process conducted in year ending 2017. As per the promotion policy declared by the bank vide staff circular no: 6362 dated 11.05.2016, based on which the promotion process from Scale IV to Scale V was declared vide staff circular no: 6506 dated 19.12.2016, there was no provision even to the Board to give relaxation in Branch Manager service period. The appellant alleged that the staff circular quoted no. 6685 dated 30.10.2017 was issued subsequently, therefore, the same was not relevant to the relaxation given in the year ending 2017.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that guidelines pertaining to the matter had been circulated vide Staff Circular no. 6685 dated 30.10.2017 and the appellant being staff of the bank, was aware of the circular issued from time to time and were easily available on the bank's internal web portal. The respondent argued that the circular dated 30.10.2017 had mentioned all the circulars issued in this regard by the bank including circular dated 23.12.2016. They also stated that it may be that approval was taken by the bank subsequently for relaxation of three years. However, they stated that they were not in a position to say anything clearly on the approval of the board now and they would respond after verifying the records properly.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, notes that reply given by the Page 3 of 5 respondent was incomplete and evasive. It is noted that the bank had taken approval from the board for giving exemption in three year branch head service, but the same was taken before 2016 or after 2016 was not clarified by the respondent. Further, the Commission feels that proper information was not provided by the respondent even after lapse of around two years from the date of RTI application. Otherwise also, mandate of the principles of natural justice which form part of right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution should be followed wherever, an individual is likely to be adversely affected by an act.

Hence, the Registry of this Bench is directed to issue show cause notice to the present CPIO and the then CPIO, to explain as to why penalty should not be imposed upon him for not providing the complete information to the appellant. The present CPIO is given a responsibility to serve this show cause notice to the then CPIO and secure his written explanations. All the written explanations (from both the CPIOs) should reach to the Commission within 15 days. Meanwhile, the respondent is directed to provide a revised reply/information to the appellant, within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 29.01.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७ Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

UNION BANK OF INDIA UNION BANK BHAWAN, 14th FLOOR, 239, VIDHAN BHAWAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 400 021 THE F.A.A, UNION BANK OF INDIA, 239, VIDHAN BHAWAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 400 021 REKHA NELLYPALLY Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission