Central Information Commission
Drb Kalaivannan vs Indian Bank on 20 July, 2015
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/001360
File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/002567
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 20th July 2015
Date of decision : 20th July 2015
Name of the Appellant : Dr. B. Kalaivannan,
"SHIRDI SAI NIVAS", No 2/A, Sindhu
Garden Thiru Nagar, Vellore 632006
Name of the Public Authority : Central Public Information Officer,
Indian Bank,
Corporate Office, Customer Services Cell
(RTI DESK), 254260, Avvai Shanmugam
Salai, Royapettah, Chennai 600014
The Appellant was present at the NIC Studio, Vellore.
On behalf of the Respondents, Ms. Maya, AGM (Legal) was present at the NIC
Studio, Chennai.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal These files contain appeals in respect of the RTI applications dated 11.9.2013 and 2.6.2014, filed by the Appellant, seeking information on certain service matters. Not CIC/SH/A/2014/001360 satisfied with the response of the Respondents, he has approached the CIC in second appeal in both the cases.
2. The Appellant stated that he was an employee of the bank. In 2006, he took admission for a PhD degree at an institute in Pune and requested the Respondents for his temporary transfer to Pune. However, he did not receive any response from them to his above request, but was subsequently transferred to a 'voluntary C' station without giving him any previous notice whatsoever. In the above context, he sought information concerning the copies and delivery of some letters, which the Respondents claim to have sent to him.
3. Regarding the RTI application dated 11.9.2013 (File No. 1360), the Appellant stated that he was not satisfied with the information provided to the four points of this application. He did not make a submission regarding the specific shortcomings in the information provided to him. However, on perusal of the records, we note that the Respondents provided the Appellant copies of the letters that were sought by him at points No. 1 and 4. The Appellant has also raised an issue concerning the nondelivery of those letters, which is the subject matter of the second RTI application considered in this order. The information in response to point No. 2 was not CIC/SH/A/2014/001360 provided by the Respondents on the ground that the relevant records were gutted in a fire accident on 11.11.2008. Further, they did not provide a copy of the temporary transfer application dated 22.6.2006 (point No. 3) by stating that it was not available with the VIT, Vellore branch. With regard to the information sought at point No. 2, we direct the Respondents to make another thorough search and provide it to the Appellant in case it is traced out. In case a renewed search also fails to locate the records in question, the CPIO should inform the Appellant accordingly in writing. With regard to the information sought at point No. 3, the CPIO is directed to obtain it from the office, where it is available and provide it to the Appellant. The CPIO should comply with our above directives within twenty days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. Such information, as is provided, should be provided free of charge
4. In the RTI application dated 2.6.2014 (File No. 2567), the Appellant sought information regarding delivery to him of three letters, which the Respondents claimed to have sent to him in the context of his request for temporary transfer to Pune and related issues. With regard to the letters mentioned at points No. 1 and 2 of the RTI application, the Respondents stated that these were sent to the Appellant by registered post A.D., but were returned undelivered by the post office and the relevant information was provided to the Appellant with the CPIO's reply letter dated 23.6.2014. They further submitted that the CIC/SH/A/2014/001360 letters were returned by the postal authorities with the notation 'not claimed', which gives them the reason to believe that the Appellant refused to receive these letters. Regarding the third letter (point No. 3), they stated that it was sent to the last known address of the Appellant and was received by one Ms. R. Savithri and a copy of the relevant page of the local delivery book was provided to the Appellant. The Appellant submitted that the letters in question were not sent to him. He also questioned the action of the Respondents in delivering the letter dated 18.9.2008 (point No. 3 of the RTI application) to a lady who was not concerned with the matter. On the Respondents reiterating that the letter was delivered at the last known address of the Appellant and that he had not left any Pune address with them, the Appellant stated that he had given information concerning his address to one Shri Thiagrajan, a senior officer of the bank. The Appellant questioned the action of the Respondents in transferring him to a C station without informing him about their response to his request for temporary transfer to Pune or regarding any subsequent action proposed to be taken by them. We have considered the submissions made by both the parties and note that the Respondents have given a categorical response to the three queries of the RTI application dated 2.6.2014 and also provided copies of the supporting documents to the Appellant. The Appellant claims that none of the letters was received by him and, therefore, the subsequent action taken by the CIC/SH/A/2014/001360 Respondents was not in order. The Commission is not competent to address such grievances under the RTI Act. The Respondents have provided the Appellant information, sought in his RTI application, regarding the manner of dispatch / delivery of the three letters. In case the Appellant believes that the action taken by the Respondents was unwarranted or against the rules, he is at liberty to raise the matter in an appropriate forum. In so far as the RTI application dated 2.6.2014 is concerned, we note that no further action is due on it.
5. With the directions in paragraph 3 and the above observations, the two appeals are disposed of.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SH/A/2014/001360