Lakhanlal Swarnkar vs State Bank Of India on 27 September, 2019

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Lakhanlal Swarnkar vs State Bank Of India on 27 September, 2019

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 11.01.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 14.01.2017 and first appeal dated 15.02.2017:-

(i) आवेदक लखन लाल वण कार को संबोिधत क ीय जन सूचना अिधकारी एवं े ीय बंधक भारतीय टेट बक े ीय !वसाय काया लय सागर रोड छतरपुर के प (. क. े.!.काया ./छतर/RTI/१६- Page 1 of 4

१७/३४ /दनांक ३१.०८.२०१६ म किथत चेक (. ०४८६९०६ से स8बंिधत भारतीय टेट बक नौगांव का प व जुि9फकार अली भु;ो का प |

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 14.01.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank Of India, Regional Business Office, Chhatarpur, M.P., seeking aforesaid information. Dissatisfied with the non-response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 15.02.2017. Thereafter, the CPIO replied on 18.02.2017. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 06.03.2017. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 11.01.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 11.01.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the CPIO wrongly denied the information.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 18.02.2017 denied the information under section 8 (1) (e) of RTI Act. The FAA upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Shailen Dharwa, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Chhatarpur, M.P. attended the hearing through video conference. 5.1. The appellant submitted that he had not received the information sought by him even after a lapse of over two years.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case submitted that the reply was given by the then CPIO, vide his letter dated 18.02.2017. The respondent further submitted that as per information received from the concerned branch, the cheque which bounced back was given to the appellant and the appellant returned the same to Mr. Julifkar Ali Bhutto, issuer of the cheque.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, feels that this is a case of cheque bounce due to insufficient funds in the account of Mr. Julifkar Ali Bhutto. It is evident from perusal of the cheque and the Account Pay-in-Slip dated 19.04.2010 that the cheque was deposited in the bank and the wavering statements made by the respondent including the reply given by the respondent from time to time vide their letters dated 31.08.2016, 18.02.2017 and 06.04.2017, shows perfunctory handling of the case and self-contradictory statements made by the bank authorities including Page 2 of 4 the receipt of cheque No. 48xxxx for an amount of Rs. 10,000/-. When the cheque came from Naugaon Branch to Chhatarpur, how the record was not available. However, they have made a statement in their letter dated 31.08.2016 that the cheque had been destroyed by Mr. Julifkar Ali Bhutto. It is not understood as to how the cheque had landed in the hands of a person who was responsible for malfeasance and how the same was allowed to be destroyed by him. It is understood that when the cheque comes in the custody of bank authorities, it is a public document, and the same is required to be preserved in accordance with the rules and regulation on the subject. The Commission takes serious note of such approbation and reprobation by the bank authorities and denying the information to the appellant. In view of the aforementioned reasons, the Registry of this Commission is directed to issue a show cause notice to the present CPIO Mr. Shailen Dharwa as well as the then CPIO Mr. S.N. Thakur to explain as to why maximum penalty should not be imposed u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act for not providing the information even after a lapse of over 2-1/2 years from the date of RTI application. The respondent is also directed that the RTI application be re-visited and revised reply/information be provided to the appellant. All written submissions must reach the Commission within 21 days.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 27.09.2019 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत=) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 3 of 4 ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES:

THE CPIO, STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, SAGAR ROAD, CHHATARPUR, MADHYA PRADESH.

THE F.A.A, GENERAL MANAGER (NW-2), STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL (M.P.) LAKHANLAL SWARNKAR, Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission