Ashok K. Saxena vs Union Bank Of India on 5 June, 2020

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Ashok K. Saxena vs Union Bank Of India on 5 June, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 14.02.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 04.06.2017 and first appeal dated 20.08.2017:-

i. 'Number of the Management Document' produced during the course of his Inquiry which exhibits that I was assigned 'Recovery Work' at Ballia Branch during his posting at Ballia Branch.

Page 1 of 5

ii. the duly verified copy of the Management Document produced during the course of his Inquiry which exhibits that he was assigned 'Recovery Work' at Ballia Branch during his posting at Ballia Branch.

iii. Please inform that to give the reply of above queries records is not available then where this record has gone from Bank's records.

iv. Please furnish the update guidelines of Union Bank of India, regarding the 'Maintenance of old Records'.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 04.06.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Daudpur, Gorakhpur, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 12.07.2017. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 20.08.2017. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 03.10.2017. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 14.02.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 14.02.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the CPIO and FAA has denied information to the RTI application made by the appellant. The appellant requests the Commission to direct the CPIO & FAA to furnish the requisite information sought in the RTI application and also initiate disciplinary proceedings against the CPIO & FAA for non-disclosure of information.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 12.07.2017 provided information on Point No. (i) to (iii) citing a Order passed by the Hon'ble Central Information Commission on 28.06.2016. The FAA vide his order dated 03.10.2017 agreed with the reply provided by the CPIO.

Page 2 of 5

Hearing on 03.12.2019:

4.1. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Ms Riya Verma, Law Officer, Union Bank of India, Gorakhpur, attended the hearing through video conference.

4.2. The Commission passed the following directions on 12.12.2019:

"6. Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, feels that the stand taken by the respondent is in contravention of the provisions of RTI Act. The respondent being a public authority is not expected to take a plea of misplacement of records owing to the reasons of shifting or relocation of office. The respondent after lapse of two and a half years have requested for documents from the Central Office. Therefore, the reply given by the respondent is found perfunctory. The respondent is directed that complete information be made available to the appellant within ten days from date of receipt of this order. The Registry of this Bench is also directed to issue show cause notice to Shri S.K. Bhargava, present CPIO as well as the then CPIO to show cause as to why penalty as per section 20 (1) of RTI Act may not be imposed upon each of them for not furnishing complete information. All written submissions must reach this Commission within 21 days."

Hearing on 21.04.2020

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Satish Kumar Bhargava, Dy.General Manager & CPIO, Union Bank of India, Gorakhpur attended the hearing through teleconference.

5.1. The appellant submitted that the respondent had not complied with the directions of the Commission and had been repeatedly quoting previous orders of the Commission to evade from furnishing of the requisite information.

Page 3 of 5

5.2. The respondent submitted that the information sought by the appellant was already provided in response to the RTI application dated 31.05.2015. The respondent had enclosed the letter for his assignment at Ballia Branch along with the bank's circular and document handling and retention policy 2017-18. The respondent explained that the same was referred to in the Commission's order dated 28.06.2018. It was clarified to the appellant that recovery work as assigned to him was part and the parcel of the job and no specific instruction/office order was required. The respondent explained that they had not deliberately denied any information. The Commission while disposing 12 second appeal filed by the appellant had observed that the appellant filed a large number of RTI applications on same or similar issues. The respondent relied upon the observations made by the Commission that the appellant had an opportunity to seek such documents during the disciplinary proceedings.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, feels that the respondent have brought to Commission's notice that the second appeals arising out of RTI applications seeking identical information have been disposed by this Commission earlier vide order dated 28.06.2016. The principles of res judicata would be applicable in this matter and the appeals with identical issues having been disposed of, there appears to be no public interest in further prolonging the matter. It had not been earlier brought into the notice of the Commission that the appellant had filed similar or same RTI applications repeatedly which has caused the matter to escalate to this stage. In view of this, the parties are cautioned to bring out clear facts and approach the Commission with clean hands in future and not cause wastage of public resources. There appears to be no mala fide on part of the CPIO. Therefore, the penalty Page 4 of 5 proceedings against the CPIOs are dropped. With these observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ाा)) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 03.06.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. Sh. S.K. BHARGAVA (C.P.I.O) UNION BANK OF INDIA, Regional Office, 466/2/3, Harihar Prasad Dubey Marg, Daudpur, Gorakhpur - 273 001 (For forwarding to the then C.P.I.O)

2. Sh. S.K. BHARGAVA (C.P.I.O) UNION BANK OF INDIA, Regional Office, 466/2/3, Harihar Prasad Dubey Marg, Daudpur, Gorakhpur - 273 001 ASHOK K. SAXENA Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission