Anivesh Kumar Bhatt vs State Bank Of India on 27 October, 2020

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Anivesh Kumar Bhatt vs State Bank Of India on 27 October, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 03.03.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 23.10.2017 and first appeal dated 04.12.2017:

Page 1 of 6

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 23.10.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Page 2 of 6 Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Chief General Manager Office, Lucknow U.P., seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 20.11.2017. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 04.12.2017. The First Appellate Authority did not pass any order. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 03.03.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 03.03.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the reply/information given by the CPIO was incomplete and misleading. The appellant has requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information on point no. (2) of the RTI application and take necessary action for providing wrong information on point no. (7) as per sub-sections (1) of section 20 of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 20.11.2017 replied that they had already provided a proper point wise reply to the appellant vide letter dated 14.11.2017. The FAA did not pass any order.

Hearing on 17.12.2019:

4.1. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Ajay Kumar Ravi, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Azamgarh attended the hearing through video conference. 4.2. The Commission passed the following directions on 24.12.2019:

"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 respondent was evasive and misleading. It is pertinent to mention that complete information has not been provided by the respondent even after lapse of around two years from the date of filing of this RTI application. The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent to revisit the RTI application and provide a revised reply as per the provisions of the RTI Act, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission further directs the Registry of this Bench to issue show cause notice to Shri Vishal Saksena, the then CPIO and Shri Ashutosh Ranjan, the present CPIO, to explain why penalty should not be imposed upon each of them for not furnishing the complete information to the appellant. The present CPIO Shri Ashutosh Ranjan is given a responsibility to serve a copy of this order to the then CPIO Shri Vishal Saksena and secure his written explanations. All the written explanations (from both the CPIOs) may reach to this Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order."

Page 3 of 6

Hearing on 18.09.2020:

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Suresh Kumar Pandey, CPIO, State Bank of India, Balia, attended the hearing through video conference. 5.1. The appellant submitted that the respondent had not furnished complete information despite the directions of the Commission. The respondent had not taken any action on his complaint and had not furnished copy of the order through which warning was issued to the officers. However, they merely informed that no fact relating to accepting bribery by the bank officials was found. The appellant requested the Commission to impose penalty upon the CPIOs for unnecessarily harassing him for several years.

5.2. The respondent submitted that in compliance of the Commission's directions, point-wise information was made available to the appellant vide letter dated 21.01.2020. The appellant was informed that the complaints received between 22.02.2017 to 05.09.2017 were inquired into and allegations against Mr. P.N. Yadav, AGM and Mr. P.P. Dubey, GM were found baseless. The respondent apologised for the delay caused in furnishing the information.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the CPIOs did not submit written explanations in response to the show cause notices. The respondent while providing point-wise reply did not furnish any information relating to action taken on his complaint dated 26.04.017. The respondent had not only violated the timelines prescribed under the RTI Act but had also not complied with the Commission's directions. The objective of the RTI Act is to ensure that the public actions to be transparent and the respondent having not complied with the directions passed on 24.12.2019 have shown complete ignorance and disregard towards the letter and spirit of RTI Act. The respondents were given two notices to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against them. The information sought by the appellant was all along in their custody, however, the same was not disclosed for reasons not disclosed in spite of show cause notice till directions by the Commission and a period of 3 years from date of RTI application had elapsed. The delay caused Page 4 of 6 in the matter reflected 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 had not been escalated upto 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 is deliberate and mala fide is established on the part of both the CPIOs i.e. Shri Vishal Saksena, the then CPIO and Shri Ashutosh Ranjan, the present CPIO. Hence, both the CPIOs are found liable under the provisions of section 20 (1) of RTI Act. In view of the above, a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) is imposed on Shri Vishal Saksena, the then CPIO and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) is imposed on Shri Ashutosh Ranjan, present CPIO. Rs. 10,000/- . The aforementioned amount shall be deducted from the salary of Shri Vishal Saksena, the then CPIO, (in two equal instalments) and Rs. 10,000/- shall be deducted from salary of Shri Ashutosh Ranjan, present CPIO (in twoequal instalments), by the Public Authority and paid by way of demand draft drawn in favour of "PAO, CAT", New Delhi, 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 03.12.2020 and the final instalment should reach the Commission by 03.01.2021. With these directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा Information Commissioner(सूसूचनाआयु ) दनांक/ Date: 20.10.2020 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (R. Sitarama Murthy) (आर. सीताराम मू त) Page 5 of 6 Deputy Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. STATE BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE - IV, RAIDOPUR AZAMGARH, UTTAR PRADESH - 276001 THE F.A.A, GENERAL MANAGER (NW-3), STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, MOTI MAHAL MARG, LUCKNOW - 226 001 ANIVESH KUMAR BHATT Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission