Central Information Commission
Ved Prakash Gupta vs State Bank Of India on 30 May, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2024/127797
िशकायत सं ा / Complaint No.CIC/SBIND/C/2024/110246
Ved Prakash Gupta ... अपीलकता/Appellant
...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: State Bank of India,
Chandigarh ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
CPIO: State Bank of India,
Mumbai
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal/Complaint:
Sl. Second Date of RTI Date of Date of Date of Date of
No. Appeal/C Application CPIO's First FAA's Second
omplaintN Reply Appeal Order Appeal/Co
o. mplaint
1 110246 30.01.2024 26.02.2024 26.02.2024 15.03.2024 17.03.2024
2 127797 06.07.2024 25.07.2024 26.07.2024 17.08.2024 02.08.2024
Note - The above-mentioned Appeal/complaint have been clubbed together for
decision as these are based on similar RTI Applications.
Date of Hearing: 27.05.2025
Date of Decision: 30.05.2025
Page 1 of 6
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Complaint No. CIC/SBIND/C/2024/110246
1. The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 30.01.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. The apathy to wards veterans can be easily understood by my case. The so called Biggest Bank of the worlds can easily understood by my case. When apply for an information under RTI Act. The bank says a grievance be raised and when a case is raised the authorities tell nothing can be done by them.
In the enclosed document I have been denied benefit of stagnation increment has been denied due to the e-mail of DGM PPG at SBI Central office Mumbai by the way the document of Indian Banks association is available on public domain. Pease therefore arrange me a copy of the information vide which I am denied benefit of Stagnation increment from 01/12/2013 by SBI 1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated26.02.2024and the same is reproduced as under
:-
"No such information is available with CPIO."
1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 26.02.2024. The FAA vide order dated 15.03.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
1.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant/Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 17.03.2024. Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2024/127797 Page 2 of 6
2. The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.07.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. I am constantly deprived by SBI of my lawful post retiral rights on the Basis of idiotic clarifications supplies by CGMHR/DGMHR/DGMPPG to Chandigarh Circle. I sought information from the Chandigarh Circle CPIO whose reply is enclosed. Vide this reply, it transpires that CGMHR/MDHR and Chairman are not clear about 7th Joint Note Signed by Bank under the aegis of IBA way back om 25/05/2015.The IBA also clarified the release of Stagnation increment of Rs.1650.00 after 3 years of Stagnation of SMGS IV officers like me. Had this increment been allowed to me, I should have got a hike of Rs.825.00 in my Basic Pension by duffers have only allowed me an increase of Rs.83.00.
I have raised my voice in HP High Court Shimla, CPENGRAMS, DFS, CPGRAMS and Sanjivani Helpline but could not move the mind set of unprofessional staff of the Bank including Sh. Dinesh Khara, CMD. One of the recently promoted MD and previously Head Chandigarh Circle has filed false affidavit (Amounting Perjury) in this regard.
If Central office has really sought clarification as per CPIO Reply, it should get it on priority as 9 years intervening period is shameful. Please supply me a Copy of the letter, Mail which has been forwarded to IBA in this regard 2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated25.07.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Corporate Centre has advised that they have taken up the matter with IBA for clarification."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 26.07.2024. The FAA vide order dated 17.08.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
Page 3 of 62.2. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant/Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 02.08.2024.
3. The Appellant/Complainant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Sourabh Ghosh, CPIO & DGM (P&PMD) and Anand Shankar, AGM Premises, LHO, attended the hearing through video conference.
4. The respondent (CPIO, P&PMD) while defending their cases inter alia submitted in CIC/SBIND/C/2024/110246, that the complainant had sought a document which he claimed was the basis for denial of the stagnation increment. However, no such record exists, and therefore, the information was denied through a letter dated 26.02.2024. This contention was also reiterated in the respondent's written submissions dated 21.05.2025.
In CIC/SBIND/A/2024/127797, the respondent (CPIO, P&PMD) submitted that the appellant had sought correspondence between the bank and the Indian Banks' Association (IBA). The respondent explained that this correspondence is held in commercial confidence and was accordingly denied under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. Furthermore, such communication is not shared with any outsider, and it does not specifically pertain to the appellant alone.
The respondent also submitted before the Commission that the appellant, in his applications, uses abusive language and disrespects the dignity of the office.
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the cases, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes in CIC/SBIND/C/2024/110246 that the respondent has furnished an appropriate response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act. Since the complainant has approached the Commission under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the scope of adjudication in a complaint under Section 18 is confined to determining whether there has been a deliberate or mala fide denial or concealment of information by the respondent. In view of the response provided by the respondent, the Commission finds no indication of any deliberate or mala fide denial or concealment of information that would warrant action under Section 18. Accordingly, the complaint is closed.
7. In case CIC/SBIND/A/2024/127797, the Commission finds that the respondent has not satisfactorily established the confidential nature of the correspondence with the Page 4 of 6 Indian Banks' Association (IBA), which was denied under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. Therefore, the respondent is directed to provide the relevant portion of the correspondence shared with the IBA, after redacting exempted third-party personal information, if any. This direction shall be complied with within 15 days of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
The Commission also takes serious note of the appellant's use of inappropriate and abusive language in his RTI applications against the bank officials. The appellant is strictly cautioned to refrain from using such language in any future applications. Any subsequent use of such language will result in the application not being entertained by the Commission.
In view of the above directions, the appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) िदनांक/Date: 30.05.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. THE CPIO State Bank Of India, CPIO, Premises & Estate Department, Local Head Office, Sector-17 A, Chandigarh-160017 Page 5 of 6
2. The CPIO State Bank Of India, CPIO, Policy & Pensioners, Management Department, Corporate Centre, 16th Floor, Post Box No.-12 Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 3Ved Prakash Gupta Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)