Shrishail Rana vs Bank Of Baroda on 17 February, 2021

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Shrishail Rana vs Bank Of Baroda on 17 February, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 10.12.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 04.06.2018 and first appeal dated 21.07.2018:-

i. Provide name and designation of the staff, who clears the Softex after receipt of them from your client of IBB Branch for the period of calendar years: 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 & 2018.

Page 1 of 6

ii. Provide the date of clearance of all credit advices and date of clearance of all Softex for the period of calendar years: 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 & 2018 of Systweak Software.

iii. Provide the documents for pending Softex for the period of calendar years: 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 & 2018 of Systweak Software.

iv. When the bank had received communication for outstanding Softex of Systweak Software, provide the date along with designation and address of that office for the period of calendar years: 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 & 2018. v. Provide the document after clearance of credit advices and Softex of Systweak Software, when the bank sent the Softex to the R.B.I. under your return provided to the appellant, copy and date of said return for the period of calendar years: 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 & 2018.

vi. Provide the document after clearance of credit advices and Softex of Systweak Software how many days the bank can keep pending these documents with themself without reporting to R.B.I. Is there any penal clause for late filing to them? vii. Is there any penal clause on the branch, staffs for not clearing the Softex, credit advices and documents in time of Systweak Software?

viii. Provide the document for any action was taken by the bank against the staff for not doing the work in time bound period with regard to, for clearing the Softex and credit advices. Also provide name and designation of the staff who have not done the work in time bound period of time by clearing these documents of Systweak Software for the period of calendar years: 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 & 2018. ix. Provide the time period for clearing the Softex along with the responsible staff at your IBB Branch.

x. Is there any penal clause against the staff for providing wrong information to be provided to other authority or kept pending the required information with them and not attending to them with regard to Systweak Software?

Page 2 of 6

xi. After the receipt of the communication for outstanding softex for Systweak Software what have been done by your IBB Branch, provide note sheet, mail including email, by your staff, date of clearance of credit advices and date of Softex for the period of calendar years: 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 & 2018 of Systweak Software. xii. When did the bank sent the information to Systweak Software for outstanding Softex and what communication received by the bank from them for the period of calendar years: 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 & 2018?

xiii. After receipt of communication from Systweak Software what action was taken by the respondent's IBB branch, provide note sheet, communication, mail with authorities received by the respondent for outstanding Softex.

xiv. Whether any disciplinary action or other penal action was taken by the bank against the branch for not completing the work in time bound period for damaging the reputation of the Systweak Software by showing outstanding Softex and damaging the reputation and goodwill.

xv. After approaching to the Head Office or their other relevant offices, what action was taken by them against the staff, branch.

xvi. How much time period was prescribed to investigate the matter after approaching to the higher authority?

xvii. Provide the information of your higher authority in the respondent's bank along with name, designation, e-mail and mailing address who will take action on complaint regarding pending softex along with complete escalation matrix and their reply period.

xviii. Provide information and document: your bank is Public Sector Bank and its staffs is public servant in the meaning of I.P.C. to take action for their accountability. xix. What reply was given to the Enforcement Department for outstanding Softex of Systweak Software? Provide copy of the same.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 04.06.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Page 3 of 6 Officer (CPIO), Bank of Baroda, Jaipur, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 21.06.2018. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 21.07.2018. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) disposed of the first appeal vide its order dated 31.08.2018/24.09.2018. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a Second Appeal dated 10.12.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 10.12.2018 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was incomplete and not satisfactory. The appellant has requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide information immediately and take necessary action as per sub-section (1) of section 20 of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 21.06.2018 replied that the matter was being investigated by Enforcement Directorate under FEMA Act 1999 and hence denied the information under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. The FAA vide his order dated 31.08.2018 directed the CPIO to provide point-wise reply to the appellant within 15 days. In compliance of the FAA's order, the CPIO gave point-wise reply to the appellant on 24.09.2018 and stated that information sought on point nos. (1), (7), (8), (10), (14), to (16) and (18) of the RTI application did not fall within the definition of "information" as defied under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.

5. The appellant represented by his father and on behalf of the respondent Shri S K Bansal, Deputy General Manager, Bank of Baroda, Jaipur, attended the hearing through video conferencing.

5.1. The representative of the appellant inter alia submitted that the appellant was proprietor of Systweak Software, whose unit was at SEZ, Jaipur. The appellant received advance payments from his overseas buyers against his software products and filed Softex to Bank and they clear these Softex and send to RBI. He further informed that in the instant case after filing of Softex to the bank, they did not clear these 124 Softex about Rs 700 Crore app. (seven hundred crore) and kept outstanding in their records and did not reply to the concerned authority for clearance. Therefore, he sought aforesaid information which was arbitrarily denied by the respondent taking shelter of section 2 (f) and section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. He argued that the respondent in their reply did not explain as to how the disclosure of the information sought would impede the process of investigation. He also contended that Page 4 of 6 he wanted copies of the documents submitted to the Enforcement Directorate related to his account.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant sought various information and documents pertaining to banking transactions done by him with the bank's International Business Branch (IBB), Jaipur. Although the then CPIO had informed the appellant that various transactions done by the appellant was being investigated by Enforcement Directorate under FEMA Act 1999 and as such expressed their inability to provide the information under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. They further submitted that in compliance of the FAA's order, point-wise reply/information was given to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act vide letter dated 24.09.2018. They argued that account related information had already been given to the appellant. Besides, they agreed to provide copies of documents given to the Enforcement Directorate for the purpose of investigation.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that though the then CPIO had denied the information claiming exemption under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, in compliance of the FAA's order, the respondent had furnished point-wise reply/information to the appellant vide letter dated 24.09.2018. During the course of hearing, it was revealed that the matter was still under investigation by Enforcement Directorate. Further, the appellant inter alia requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide copies of the documents given to the ED and the respondent agreed for the same. Moreover, in the interest of justice, fair opportunity should be given to the parties to defend their case. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to provide copies of documents related to the appellant's account given to the ED for investigation, 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) (सुरेशचं ा) Information Commissioner (सच ू नाआयु त) दनांक/Date: 17.02.2021 Authenticated true copy Page 5 of 6 R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत.) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. BANK OF BARODA REGIONAL OFFICE JAIPUR, BARODA BHAWAN, PLOT No. 13, AIRPORT PLAZA, DURGAPURA, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR - 302 018 THE F.A.A., BANK OF BARODA, ZONAL OFFICE, BARODA BHAWAN, PLOT No. 13, AIRPORT PLAZA,DURGAPURA, TONKROAD, JAIPUR - 302 018 Shrishail Rana Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission