Vikas Garg vs State Bank Of India on 7 October, 2020

[Cites 3, Cited by 4]

Central Information Commission

Vikas Garg vs State Bank Of India on 7 October, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 24.01.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 23.08.2017 and first appeal dated 13.10.2017:-

I. आपक Ansari Road Branch को मेरे वारा दनांक 10.07.2017 को दये गये प का कोई उ र दया गया है और न ह यह बताया गया है क 29.06.2017 को मेरे A/c से Rs. 1350/-

य काटे गये! कारण बताने का क ट कर! और दोषी के व ध या कायवाह क है बताय! II. आपके customer care No. 1800-425-3800 को 2:30PM पर दनांक 10.08.2017 को शकायत इस बारे म दज़ क गयी है पर तु जब ाथ ने 23.08.2017 को customer care से Response जानना चाह तो बताया गया क 10.08.2017 को Rs. 1350/- काटने क कोई Page 1 of 5 शकायत दज़ नह क गयी ! कृपया call recording सुनकर नधा रत कर क शकायत ाथ के अनुसार य नह दज़ क गयी व ् दोषी के व ध या कायवाह क है बताने का क ट कर!

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 23.08.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Garh Road, Meerut seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 24.09.2017. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 13.10.2017. The First Appellate Authority did not pass any order. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 24.01.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 24.01.2018 inter alia on the grounds that information sought was relating to the false transactions in his account and requested the Commission that the information be disclosed in public interest.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 24.09.2017 and stated a transaction worth Rs. 1,350/- was carried out on 29.06.2017 and the amount was transferred in favour of the Merchant acquiring business. The FAA did not pass any order.

Hearing on 30.08.2019:

4.1. The appellant attended the hearing through video conference and the respondent remained absent.

4.2. The Commission passed the following directions on 5.9.:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the appellant and perusal of records, notes that the reply given by the respondent is incomplete. The respondent has not given any response with respect to point no. 2 of the RTI application. The respondent remained absent during the hearing and did not seek leave of this Commission for such absence. In view of this and incomplete information given by the respondent, the Registry of this Bench is directed to issue show cause notice to Mr. Arun Kumar Srivastav, the then CPIO and the present CPIO to explain as to why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon him for not furnishing complete information. Meanwhile, the respondent is directed that complete information be furnished to the appellant Page 2 of 5 within ten days of receipt of this order. All written submissions must reach this Commission within 21 days."

Hearing on 12.12.2019:

4.1. The appellant attended the hearing through video conference and the respondent remained absent.

4.2. The Commission passed the following directions on 06.01.2020:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the appellant and perusal of records, notes that the second appeal was filed by Shri Vikas Garg whereas the RTI application as well as the first appeal were filed by Shri Kanhaiya Lal. In absence of Shri Kanhaiya Lal or any documents in that regard, the reasons for the same could not be ascertained. The respondent also remained absent during hearing. The CPIOs are given a final opportunity to appear before the Commission and explain in response to the show cause notices issued against each of them. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned."

Hearing on 03.09.2020:

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Kunal Kumar, Chief Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant submitted that he had requested for information in respect of his own father's current account whereas the respondent had falsely claimed that he was a third party. The appellant had also provided the copy of pass book along with signatures of his father, despite that the respondent did not provide the information. 5.2. The respondent submitted that the appellant was informed vide letter dated 21.09.2019 that the information was exempted under section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the appellant and perusal of records, observed that the respondent did not provide the information despite a period of three years having elapsed. The appellant provided all requisite proof that he had requested for information in respect of his father's account and the second appeal carried the signature of Mr. Kanhaya Lal. The respondent did not make any efforts to match the Page 3 of 5 signatures, conduct KYC or obtain documents. The delay caused in this matter reflects the callous attitude and ignorance of the then CPIO towards RTI applicants as well as customers and that had the matter been dealt with diligently the same might have not escalated to the level of the Commission. The CPIOs also did not submit any written explanations in response to the show cause notices issued.

6.1. The Commission notes that the negligence of statutory duty as designated CPIOs appears to be deliberate and mala fide is established on part of both Shri Arun Kumar Srivastav and, Shri Mukhtiyar Singh, present CPIO, hence, both are found liable as per section 20 (1) of RTI Act. Keeping in view the gravity attributable to both the CPIOs, a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) is imposed on Shri Arun Kumar Srivastav, the then CPIO and penalty of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) is imposed on Shri Mukhtiyar Singh, present CPIO. Rs. 10,000/- shall be deducted from the salary of Shri Arun Kumar Srivastav, the then CPIO, (in two equal instalments) and Rs. 5,000/- shall be deducted from salary of Shri Mukhtiyar Singh, present CPIO (in single instalment), by the Public Authority, paid by way of demand draft drawn in favour of "PAO, CAT", New Delhi, and forward the demand drafts addressed to the Deputy Registrar (CR-II), email: [email protected] Room No. 106, First Floor, Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi 110067. The first instalment of penalty amount should reach to the Commission by 06.12.2020 and the final instalment should reach the Commission by 06.01.2021. The respondent is also directed to provide the information within three weeks from the date of this order. With these directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Suresh Chandra(सुरेशचं ा) Information Commissioner(सूचनाआयु ) दनांक/ Date: 06.10.2020 Authenticated true copy (अिध मािणत स य ित) R. Sitarama Murthy(आर. सीताराम मू त) Deputy Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:

THE CPIO, STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, REGION - 3, ZONAL OFFICE, GARH ROAD, MEERUT (U.P.) THE F.A.A, GENERAL MANAGER (NW-3), STATE BANK OF INDIA, 7TH FLOOR, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, 11, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI VIKAS GARG & SHRI KAINHAIYA LAL Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission