Krishan vs Central Bank on 3 August, 2021

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Krishan vs Central Bank on 3 August, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 12.02.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 28.07.2018 and first appeal dated 12.09.2018:-

(i) Financial year 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2018 Total Income (Pension +FD Interest +other benefits and Income तथा इस समय म( िकतना टे . बन तथा at source िकतना जमा 2आ आिद) की पूण9 detail की Income tax ;रटन9 भरने के िलए चािहए I यह सब ;रकॉड9 आपके बDक म( है और मेरे पास नहीं है I PAN नो.###86E है तथा AC NO.####४९९२ है पुराना AC NO. १८८ है I Page 1 of 5

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 28.07.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Central Bank of India, Rohtak, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 24.09.2018 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with this, the appellant filed first appeal dated 12.09.2018 The First Appellate Authority did not pass any order. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 12.02.2019 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 12.02.2019 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 24.09.2018 and provided copies of pension statement and fixed deposits, etc. The FAA did not pass any order.

Hearing on 04.03.2021:

4.1. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri R.K.Singh, CPIO, Regional Manager, Central Bank Rohtak attended the hearing through video conference.

4.2. The Commission passed the following directions on 08.03.2021:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observes that the reply given by the respondent was incomplete and evasive. The respondent claimed that the account related documents were not maintained beyond a period of ten years but did not produce any corroborating guidelines/regulation, etc. or any weeding out records, if any. In view of the above, Shri R.K. Singh, present CPIO and Shri P.C. Khurana, the then CPIO, are directed to show cause as to why action under section 20 (1) of RTI Act may not be initiated against each of them for not providing complete information. Shri R.K. Singh is given the responsibility to serve a copy of this order upon the above named CPIOs and secure written explanations Page 2 of 5 as well as their attendance on the next date of hearing. All written submissions must be uploaded on the Commission's web portal within 21 days."

Hearing on 13.07.2021:

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Ms. Neha Chauhan, Sr. Manager (Law), Central Bank, Rohtak attend the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that as per bank's norms they did not maintain records relating to account (savings or pension) beyond a period of ten years. Therefore, account statements for period 2010 onwards and copy of Form 16A was made available to the appellant earlier. The appellant had sought information pertaining to pension account statement for the year 2004 onwards. The respondent explained that the records in 2004 were recorded in manual manner and thereafter it was converted into auto-semi system and then to core banking system. The respondent further stated that the initial reply was given by them on 24.09.2018. The CPIO provided written explanations vide letter dated 31.03.2021 and provided the additional information to the appellant vide letter dated 08.03.2021. The respondent stated that earlier Branch Office was under jurisdiction of CPIO Rohtak (Regional Manager, Central Bank of India Rohtak) and after restructuring of the Regions in their bank, the Regional Office Karnal came into their existence from July 2019 and accordingly he had been posted there as Regional Manager and thereafter Branch Office fell under the jurisdiction of Regional Office Karnal i.e. CPIO Karnal. On receipt of the RTI application, reply dated 24.09.2018 was provided to the appellant and he was informed that records of 2000 were not available in the branch, however, statements from03.07.2010 onwards were given by the then CPIO. In compliance of the Commission's order dated 08.03.2021, pension account statement for the period 05.03.2007 to 02.07.2010 were retrieved and were provided to the appellant. The respondent stated that it was time consuming to retrieve old records, however, only records pertaining to 2007 to 2010 could be retrieved. The respondent enclosed copy of Record Maintenance Policy of the bank (updated upto November 2020) was provided to Page 3 of 5 the appellant laying down the provision for preservation of documents relating to relevant transactions for a period of ten years.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that in compliance of the Commission's order dated 08.03.2021 the CPIO provided written explanation vide letter dated 31.03.2021. The respondent made all efforts to retrieve old pension account statement 2007 onwards. The respondent enclosed the copy of circular for Management of Records Policy reflecting the period for preservation of records relating to transactions, etc. It may be noted that the respondent had replied to the appellant on 24.09.2018 and it was not the case of non-response. Further, the additional information i.e. account statement 2007 onwards was made available to the appellant vide letter dated 08.03.2021. That being so, it appears that the respondent complied with the directions of the Commission. Further, in absence of any mala fide on the part of the CPIO, it would not be appropriate to initiate penal action against the CPIOs. The written explanations submitted by the CPIOs are satisfactory and reasonable. The show cause notices against Shri Shri R.K. Singh, present CPIO and Shri P.C. Khurana, the then CPIO, are hereby dropped. With the aforementioned 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: 02.08.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO : CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE ROHTAK, JAWAHAR MARKET, MODEL TOWN, ROHTAK, HARYANA THE F.A.A, Central Bank Of India, ZONAL OFFICE, P.B. No. 13, SCO No. 58-59, BANK SQUARE, SEC. - 17B, CHANDIGARH - 160 017 CPIO : 1. SHRI R.K. SINGH (C.P.I.O) CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE ROHTAK, JAWAHAR MARKET, MODEL TOWN, ROHTAK, HARYANA

2. SHRI R.K. SINGH (C.P.I.O) CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE ROHTAK, JAWAHAR MARKET, MODEL TOWN, ROHTAK, HARYANA (FOR FORWARDING TO THE THEN C.P.I.O SH. P.C. KHURANA) SH. KRISHAN Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission