Pankaj Kumar Singh vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 1 October, 2019

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Pankaj Kumar Singh vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 1 October, 2019

1. A Show Cause Notice was issued to Shri Suvendu Gupta, the then CPIO, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Regional Office, Nawada, Bihar in compliance of the Commission's order no. CIC/RUGBK/A/2017/139817 dated 27.08.2018 for not furnishing the information to the appellant. The CPIO was directed to submit an explanation as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against him.

Page 1 of 5

Hearing on 24.08.2018:

2. The appellant Shri Pankaj Kumar Singh and the respondent Shri Amrendra Kumar, Senior Manager, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Regional Office, Nawada, Bihar attended the hearing through video conference.

Interim Decision (27.08.2018):

3. The Commission passed the following directions on 27.08.2018:

"6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, notes that the CPIO vide letter dated 20.03.2017 wrongly denied the information sought for on the grounds that it does not relate to the appellant. The Commission observes that the information sought under the RTI Act, 2005 can be denied by the CPIO only under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and not otherwise. The Commission, thus, finds that Shri Shubhendu Gupta, the then CPIO obstructed in furnishing the information sought for to the appellant. The Commission, therefore, directs the Registry of this Bench to issue a Show Cause Notice to Shri Shubhendu Gupta, the then CPIO, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Regional Office, Nawada, Bihar for explaining as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against him. Shri Amrendra Kumar, Senior Manager, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Regional Office, Nawada, Bihar shall ensure that a copy of this order is served upon Shri Shubhendu Gupta, the then CPIO, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Regional Office, Nawada, Bihar.

7. The Commission further observes that a point wise reply was provided by the FAA to the appellant vide letter dated 18.05.2017. However, the information sought on point nos. 3, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2, 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6 of the RTI application has been incorrectly denied as the rules/guidelines pertaining to the opening and closing of the accounts and statistical information i.e. total number of accounts opened or closed should have been disclosed. Further as per the appellant, Page 2 of 5 copy of RBI circular pertaining to point nos. 1 and 2 of the RTI application has not been provided to him. The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent to provide information on point nos. 3, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2, 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6 of the RTI application as above said along with a copy of RBI circular, as referred by the FAA, with respect to point nos. 1 and 2 of the RTI application, to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission."

Hearing on 24.09.2019:

4. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. T.K. Chatterjee, Regional Officer and Mr. Promod Prasad Singh, Senior Manager, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Regional Office, Nawada, Bihar attended the hearing through video conference.

5. The appellant submitted that complete information had not been provided by the respondent despite clear directions of the Commission in order dated 27.08.2018. He argued that information sought on point no. (3) of the RTI application i.e. relating to Business Correspondent Unit of the bank had not been provided so far. He requested the Commission to impose maximum penalty on the concerned CPIO for withholding the information sought by him. 5.1. The respondent submitted that they had already provided point-wise information as directed by the Commission vide order dated 27.08.2018. The respondent tendered unconditional apology for the inconvenience caused to the appellant. Mr. Suvendu Gupta, the then CPIO/Regional officer, vide letter dated 25.09.2019 submitted that complete information as directed by the Commission had been furnished to the appellant and order of the Commission had been complied with. He also reiterated his pledge for the highest respect towards the Hon'ble CIC and prayed that keeping in view of clean records of compliance as regards RTI all along his service life, he may be exonerated from any action under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

Page 3 of 5

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, feels that point wise reply/information has already been provided by the respondent vide letter dated 16.10.2018 and order 27.08.2018 of the Commission has been complied with. The explanations given by the then CPIO is found reasonable and satisfactory. It appears that there was no conscious or deliberate attempt to withhold the information sought by the appellant. In view of the aforementioned reasons and absence of mala fide on the part of the then CPIO, there appears to be no ground for imposition of penalty. Therefore, the show cause notice issued to Shri Suvendu Gupta, the then CPIO, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Regional Office, Nawada, Bihar is hereby dropped. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

Suresh Chandra (सुरेश चं ाा)) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/ Date: 01.10.2019 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 4 of 5 ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES:

SHRI SUVENDU GUPTA (THE THEN C.P.I.O), C/O THE C.P.I.O., MADHYA BIHAR GRAMIN BANK, LAL COMPLEX, MANGAR VIGHA MORE, NAWADA, BIHAR.

SHRI PANKAJ KUMAR SINGH, Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission