Central Information Commission
Mohit Kakkar vs Bank Of Baroda on 21 August, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. . (As Per Annexure)
Mohit Kakkar ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Bank of Baroda,
Bandra, Mumbai ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
CPIO: Bank of Baroda,
Baroda, Gujarat
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal(s):
Sl. No. Second Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of
Appeal RTI CPIO's First FAA's Second
No. Application Reply Appeal Order Appeal
1. 648306 08.09.2024 21.09.2024 22.09.2024 11.10.2024 02.11.2024
2. 657999 24.10.2024 15.11.2024 15.11.2024 07.12.2024 28.12.2024
3. 654931 16.09.2024 15.10.2024 02.11.2024 27.11.2024 10.12.2024
4. 650695 08.09.2024 07.10.2024 10.10.2024 08.11.2024 15.11.2024
5. 650306 08.09.2024 07.10.2024 10.10.2024 08.11.2024 13.11.2024
6. 643923 17.07.2024 14.08.2024 08.09.2024 27.09.2024 01.10.2024
The instant set of appeals have been clubbed for decision as these relate to similar
RTI Applications and same subject matter.
Date of Hearing:01.08.2025
Date of Decision:19.08.2025
Page 1 of 13
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/648306
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.09.2024 seeking information on the following points:
Request you to provide detailed procedure for issuance of chargesheet to the employee.
What is Banks underlying provisions of disciplinary procedure against the authorities:
1. Who does not response to employee grievance after series of mails with hand folded request.
2. Make misuse of Banks grievance portal like SAMADHAN for their own convenience.
3. Share the confidential communication of employee addressed to higher authority and chargesheet to mail address of branch or office where employee is posted.
Please share the circular or policy document that prohibits employees from communicating directly with top management after following the proper channel, particularly in instances where their concerns have not been addressed by authorities up to the level of CGM.
1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 21.09.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1. Procedure for issuance of charge sheet against officer and award staff is enumerated in the following regulations/ settlements:Page 2 of 13
i. Bank of Baroda Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976- Officer.
ii. Memorandum of settlement dated 10.04.2002 entered between Indian Bank Association (IBA) and Workwomen Unions in Banks award staff.
2. The sought information is based on a hypothetical question and does not come in the purview of information, hence exempted under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. However, based on the nature and gravity of misconduct, action is initiated by the respective Disciplinary Authority as pet the provisions of rules/ regulations of the Bank as mentioned in Point No. 1.
3. Procedure/Policy and circular is purely for the purpose of internal circulation meant for in house staff and internal circulation and not for public disclosures as it may adversely affect Banks competitive position. Hence cannot be provided. Further, information sought is held under commercial confidence and trade secrets, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of the third party. Hence, the disclosure of the information sought for is exempted under Section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act."
1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.09.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 11.10.2024 directed the CPIO to provide the reply towards point No. 3.
1.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 02.11.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/657999
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.10.2024 seeking information on the following points:
In reference to the Common Selection Exercise 2024, Page 3 of 13
1. How many Regional Compliance officers were allowed to appear for the interview of RSETI.
2. How many candidates deployed in one vertical were allowed to appear for exam/interview of another vertical 2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 15.11.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
1. Annexure-III of the Circular dated 12.04.2024 is attached herewith, wherein eligibility criteria for applying for RSETI Director is attached.
2. The information sought is vague hence does not come under the purview of "Information" as per definition under Section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005. Hence, no information can be provided 2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.11.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 07.12.2024 directed the CPIO to provide revised reply of point no. 1.
2.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 28.12.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/654931
3. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.09.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. Number of Employees Omitted from Inter-Zonal Transfer (IZT-2024): Please provide the number of employees in scales 1, 2, 3, and 4 (bifurcated into generalist and specialist) who were omitted from the IZT exercise based on longer stay criteria, despite not having submitted any prior representation citing the fact that their peers colleagues in same scale in respective Zones with equivalent or lesser stay were transferred to other zones.Page 4 of 13
2. Employees Submitting Representation Post-IZT Notification: How many employees, across scales 1, 2, 3, and 4, submitted representations after receiving their IZT letters based on longer stay criteria? Please specify how many of these representations were related to compassionate grounds.
3. Agriculture Officers and Parity with Generalist Officers: Are Agriculture Officers considered at par with Generalist Officers concerning the IZT process? If yes, how many Agriculture Officers were transferred in the current IZT exercise? If no, kindly provide the criteria used for their transfers, along with the most recent circular indicating any changes in the criteria.
4. Longer Stay Criteria for IT Officers (Up to Scale 3): Is the longer stay criteria for IT Specialist Officers uniform up to scale 3? If no, please provide the minimum stay criteria (scale-wise) for IT Officers in the New Delhi and Lucknow Zones under the recent IZT exercise.
5. Inter-Zonal Transfer Criteria for Scale 4 Officers (IT, Marketing, HRM): Are Scale 4 Officers (IT, Marketing, and HRM) treated at par with Generalist Officers for the IZT process? What were the criteria set by the bank for transferring Scale 4 Officers in both the Generalist and Specialist cadres?
Additionally, how many Scale 4 Officers (both Generalist and Specialist) were transferred to adjacent zones, and how many were not? ..., etc./ other related information 3.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 15.10.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
Point No. 1: Officers in Scale I, II & III are transferred as per the Bank's transfer Policy circulated vide circular no. HO:BR:116:19 dated 01/02/2024, copy of which is available in Bank's Intranet/Barodapedia.
There is no provision of omission of employees.Page 5 of 13
Point No. 2 & 3: Data is not maintained in the manner it is sought.
Point No. 4 & 5: Transfer of specialist officers has been done as per Regulation 47 of Bank of Baroda Officers Service Regulation, 1979 (Copy is available in Bank's website) Data is not maintained in the manner it is sought.
Etc. 3.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.11.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 27.11.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
3.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 10.12.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/650695
4. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.09.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. Please provide a copy of the manpower planning document/policy currently in force for Branch/Office, including details of how manpower is planned and allocated across various branches/offices.
2. Date of amendment of Man power planning currently in force.
3. Please confirm whether the current manpower planning mechanism is in line with the tasks and responsibilities allocated to the branches/offices by different verticals within the organization, as per the directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).Page 6 of 13
4. Please provide any documents or communication confirming the compliance of manpower planning with RBI guidelines and directions regarding the operational efficiency of branches/ offices.
4.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 07.10.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1. The Manpower planning is a continuous process of analyzing the Organization's exiting manpower forecasting future requirements, balancing the demand and supply, framing hiring and selection strategies for sustained growth in the market considering dynamic factors such as Business expansion, technology adoptions, Market trend, Market Risk etc. The factors stated above to formulate the Manpower planning policy, if disclosed, may affect the competitive position of the Bank.
Thus, the information sought falls under Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005 and no larger public interest is involved in sharing the said information.
2. The manpower planning is a continuous process.
3. The information sought is in the nature of seeking clarification and confirmation which does not come under the purview of "Information" as per Section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005.Hence, no information can be provided.
4. The information sought is not specific and is in the nature of query, which does not come under the purview of "Information" as per Section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005. Hence no information can be provided.
4.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.10.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 08.11.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 15.11.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/650306 Page 7 of 13
5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.09.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. Can a service condition such as lock in period or ineligibility to apply in cross vertical in future selection exercise ,be imposed to the employee/introduced with retroactive effect in circular/notification of selection exercise which was never outline in the neither in circular/notification of selection exercise through which his selection was done in corresponding vertical.
2. Can an employee, who has completed the locking period of the selection exercise through which their selection was made, remains ineligible to apply for any future selection exercise in some other vertical.
3. Provision to take action against HR authority who recommend the candidature of employee which was later rejection by Head Office. 5.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 07.10.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"Point No. 1 & 2: The information sought is in the nature of seeking clarification and confirmation which does not come under the purview of "Information" as per Section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005.
Hence, no information can be provided Point No. 3: The hypothetical and is in the nature of query, which does not come under the purview of "Information" as per Section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005. information sought is Hence no information can be provided"
5.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.10.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 08.11.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
Page 8 of 135.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 13.11.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/643923
6. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.07.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. What is the criteria of mandatory branch posting for specialist HR official in Bank of Baroda.
2. No. of cadre wise specialist HR officials in Bank of Baroda.
3. Out of which how many HR officials have done mandatory branch posting as per sought criteria.
4. How many specialist HR officials who have not done mandatory branch posting are working in Manpower planning cell.
5. Region/Zone/Head Office/Corporate Office wise list of generalist officers and awards staff working in HR department.
..., etc./ other related information 6.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 14.08.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1. Please refer to clause 7.7 of Transfer Policy circulated vide Circular No. HO:BR:116:19 dated 01/02/2024, copy of which is available in Bank,s Intranet/Barodapedia.
2. HR Specialist Officers as on 09/08/2024:
JMG/S-I:-27- MMG/S-II: -71- MMG/S-III: -81- MMG/S-IV: -74-
3. Data is not readily available.Page 9 of 13
Further, we draw your kind attention in the matter of Avnish Agrawal V/s CPIO Indian Overseas Bank, (CIC/IOVBK/A/2017/186064 dated 28.12.2017) wherein CIC held that the CPIO can only provide information available with him or held by him.
4. The information sought is vague as well as not specific, hence does not come under the purview of "Information" as laid down under Section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005.
In this regard, please also refer the case of Shishir Gupta Vs CPIO, RBI; 2022 online CIC 159 decided on 28.03.2022 wherein CIC held that the information sought were wide/general and non-specific in nature.
5. Data is not readily available.
Further, we draw your kind attention in the matter of Avnish Agrawal V/s CPIO Indian Overseas (CIC/IOVBK/A/2017/186064 Bank, dated 28.12.2017) wherein CIC held that the CPIO can only provide information available with him or held by him.
Etc. 6.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.09.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 27.09.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
6.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 01.10.2024.
7. The appellant appeared in person and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Sunil Kumar, DGM & Ms. Charutha Joshi, Legal Manager attended the hearing through video conference.
8. The appellant inter alia submitted that he has filed the instant RTI applications and has not received satisfactory information from the CPIO. Further, the appellant contended that he has not received the CPIO reply dated 24.10.2024 as claimed by the Page 10 of 13 respondent in case bearing number CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/648306. W.r.t case number CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/657999, the appellant alleged, the information for point no.1 is available with the respondent but, still the same was denied to him. The appellant left the hearing and has not made any submissions on remaining RTI applications.
9. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the CPIO has duly complied with the FAA order dated 11.10.2024 w.r.t point no.3 in case number CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/648306 and sent fresh reply dated 24.10.2024 to the appellant by speed post on 29.10.2024. However, the appellant was not present at given address and therefore the aforesaid reply of CPIO was returned back to the respondent bank. Written submission dated 01.08.2025, Speed Post slip dated 29.10.2024 & FAO compliance by CPIO vide reply dated 27.12.2024 w.r.t case no. CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/657999 filed by the respondent are taken on record.
10. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes the following:
CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/648306: The CPIO gave an appropriate reply to the appellant for all the points. However, the respondent submitted that the CPIO's reply dated 24.10.2024 could not be delivered to the appellant due to non-availability of the appellant at given address and the speed post slip dated 29.10.2024 filed by the respondent as proof of the same are taken on record. The written submission dated 01.08.2025 along with CPIO's reply dated 24.10.2024 filed by the respondent is served on the appellant's mail id [email protected] on 14.08.2025 and the same serves the purpose of delivering the aforesaid CPIO's reply to the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.Page 11 of 13
CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/657999, CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/654931, CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/650695, CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/650306, CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/643923:
The Commission finds that the CPIO gave an appropriate reply to the appellant. Therefore, no interference of the Commission is required. However, most of the points sought by the appellant are in the nature of seeking clarification/queries and the same are not covered U/s 2(f) of RTI Act. Hence, the CPIO is advised to claim relevant clauses of RTI Act when posed with such RTI applications seeking queries/clarifications. In this regard, the attention of the appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education &Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011] date of judgment 09.08.2011. The following was thus held:
"....A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority......." In view of the above, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matters. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 19.08.2025 Page 12 of 13 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO Bank of Baroda, Baroda Corporate Centre, C-26, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 2 The CPIO Bank of Baroda, Head Office, Operations & Services Department, Baroda Bhawan, 7th Floor, R.C. Dutt Road, Alkapuri, Baroda, Gujarat -
390007 3 Mohit Kakkar Annexure of Second Appeals Sl. No. Second Appeal No. 1 CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/648306 2 CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/657999 3 CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/654931 4 CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/650695 5 CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/650306 6 CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/643923 Page 13 of 13 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)