Suresh Chand Gupta vs State Bank Of India on 13 July, 2020

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Suresh Chand Gupta vs State Bank Of India on 13 July, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 25.04.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the Page 1 of 5 appellant through his RTI application dated 05.03.2018 and first appeal dated 25.04.2018:-

(i) मने VRS 2017 योजना के तहत SBI VRS िलया था । ऋण खाता आपकी चं शेखर आजाद नगर भीलवाड़ा शाखा म है । इसे चालू रखने की अनु मित आपके 'ारा िकस तारीख को जारी की गयी I

(ii) बक िनयमानु सार अिधकतम िकतने िदनों म *ीकृित जारी कर दी जानी चािहए

(iii) -ा आपके 'ारा इसकी पालन सुिनि.त की गयी I

(iv) यिद नहीं? तो -ा दोषी कम0चारी व अिधकारी के 1खलाफ बक 'ारा कोई अनुशासना4क काय0वाही की गयी I

(v) अनुशासना4क काय0वाही का िववरण उपल6 कराव।

(vi) यिद काय0वाही नहीं की गई तो िकस अिधिनयम के तहत नहीं की गयी I

(vii) दोषी अिधकारी व कम0चारी का नाम पदनाम आदे श सूिचत कर कराव।

(viii) भिव7 िनिध अनु भाग 'ारा इस खाते का पै सा आपको िकस िदनां क को भे जा गया (चेक से एवं िदनां क से अवगत कराव।

(ix) आपके 'ारा इसका भुगतान िकस िदनां क को िकया गया था।

(x) -ा इन रािश पर 8ाज भु गतान (चेक जारी एवं भु गतान ितिथ के अंतर) िकया गया था।

(xi) यिद िकया गया था तो 8ाज दर -ा थी।

(xii) यिद 8ाज भु गतान नहीं िकया गया तो बक 'ारा िबना 8ाज पै से रखने का िनयम अिधिनयम बताव।

Page 2 of 5

(xiii) यिद 8ाज भुगतान िकया गया हैतो भु गतान की गई दर (8ाज) से संबंिधत िनयम बताव।

(xiv) भीलवाड़ा शाखा म मेरा OD Against STDR चल रहा है । यह खाता शेष बता रहा हैिफर भी िलिमट की रािश का चेक : 134000/- बक 'ारा मेरे ;े <ुटी से काटकर आपकी शाखा को भे जा गया। संबंिधत िनयमावली से अवगत बताव।

(xv) -ा उ= चेक के जारी एवं भुगतान अविध अंतर की 8ाज भुगतान आपके 'ारा िकया गया है ।

(xvi) िकया गया हैतो िकस िदनांक को। (xvii) 8ाज दर -ा थी।

(xviii) संबंिधत 8ाज दर से संबंिधत िनयमावली से अवगत कराव। (xix) यिद 8ाज भुगतान नहीं िकया गया हैतो संबंिधत बक िनयमावली से अवगत कराव।

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 05.03.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Bhilwara, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 05.06.2018. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 25.04.2018. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 19.05.2018. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 11.06.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 11.06.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant has Page 3 of 5 requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information immediately and take necessary action as per sub-section (1) of section 20 of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 05.06.2018furnished information on point nos. (8) & (14) of the RTI application. The FAA vide his order dated 19.05.2017 directed the CPIO to provide a final reply to the appellant within 7 days.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Rambilas Meena, Asstt. General Manager & CPIO, State Bank of India, Bhilwara attended the hearing through audio conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had received the reply/information only on point nos. (8) and (14) of the RTI application and that too was misleading. He argued that the statement made by the FAA in its order that the then CPIO had replied to the RTI application vide letter dated 02.04.2018 was false. He prayed the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the complete information without further delay. 5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the then CPIO had already furnished point-wise reply to the RTI application vide letters dated 02.04.2018 and 05.06.2018. They stated that both the replies were sent to the appellant through the speed post. However, they agreed to provide a revised point-wise reply/information once again to the appellant.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, notes that the respondent claimed during the hearing that they have furnished reply/information to the appellant vide letters dated 02.04.2018 and 05.06.2018. However, the respondent could not produce copy of their reply dated 02.04.2018 before the Commission. Perusal of the records reveals that they had furnished reply/information only on point nos. (8) and (14) of the RTI application to the Page 4 of 5 appellant. In views of this, the respondent is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide a point-wise revised reply/information to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With the above directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

सुरेश चं ा) (Suresh Chandra) (सु ा सूचना आयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक/Date: 22.06.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

STATE BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE - IV, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE - IV (UDAIPUR), 2-S-10-18, DUMAS PRESIDENCY (2ND FLOOR), BASANT VIHAR, BHILWARA - 311 001 THE F.A.A, GENERAL MANAGER (NW-2), STATE BANK OF INDIA, JAIPUR ADMINISTRATIVE AND BUSINESS UNIT, TILAK MARG, JAIPUR - 302 005 SURESH CHAND GUPTA Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission