Sushil Kumar vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 22 January, 2021

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Sushil Kumar vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 22 January, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 19.06.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 31.01.2018 and first appeal dated 20.03.2018:-

 Details of transaction of last 12 years of the appellant's father Dr. Bhagwat Dayal account's no. XXXXX.

Page 1 of 6

 If any transaction was made then provide the details of that person because his father was paralised and cannot make any transaction on his own.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 31.01.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Sarva U.P., Gramin Bank, Regional office, Jhansi, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 08.02.2018 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with this, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 20.03.2018. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 27.04.2018 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 19.06.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 19.06.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 08.02.2018 denied the information under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 8 of the RTI Act. The FAA vide order dated 27.04.2018 agreed with the views take by the CPIO.

Hearing on 30.06.2020:

4.1. The respondent's contact number not available and the appellant attended the hearing through audio conference.

4.2. The Commission passed the following directions on 04.08.2020:

"The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the appellant and perusal of records, notes that the reply given by the respondent was evasive and misleading. It is also noted that the appellant is elder son of his father Dr. Bhagwat Dayan about whose account the information was sought. A copy of proof showing the appellant is elder son of father Dr. Bhagwat Dayan has been submitted to Page 2 of 6 the concerned Talbehat Branch despite that the information was not provided. Moreover, the respondent have denied the information without giving proper justification for the denial of information which is viewed seriously by the Commission. It may not be out of place to mention that over a period of two years has elapsed and no information has been provided by the respondent. In view of this, the Registry of this Bench is directed to issue a Show Cause notice to the then CPIO and the present CPIO, Prathma U.P. Gramin Bank, Head Office, Moradabad, U.P., as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against each of them for nor providing the information to the appellant. The present CPIO is given a responsibility to serve a copy of this order as well as show cause notice to the then CPIO and secure his written explanations. All the written explanations (from both the CPIOs) must reach the Commission within three weeks. Meanwhile, the respondent is directed to provide a revised information to the appellant within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order."

Hearing on 19.01.2021:

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Subodh Kumar, Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that denial of information relating to his father's account was not satisfactory. He argued that being elder son of Dr. Bhagwat Dayal he was entitled for the information specially when his father was paralyzed and could not do any bank transactions in this condition. However, the respondent have arbitrarily denied the information by claiming exemption under section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act. The appellant further expressed his apprehensions regarding manipulation of funds from the account who generally submitted the Life Certificate of their father and collected the pension amount from the bank.

5.2. The respondent submitted that they had not submitted any written submissions in respect of the show cause notice and tendered apologies for the same. Further, the respondent submitted that they would provide the information promptly and requested the Commission to grant some more time.

Page 3 of 6

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, notes that there appears to be trust deficit between the sons of the account holder Dr. Bhagwat Dayal who has been suffering from paralysis as informed by the appellant and that he was bed-ridden living with his younger son. The respondent has failed to give explanations to the show cause notice dated 04.08.2020 and thus is guilty of not honouring the order of the Commission's order. It is noted that both the CPIOs were given sufficient opportunity to appear before the Commission to present their cases as well as respond to the show cause notice issued to them. The scheduling of matters for multiple times exhausts public resources and puts avoidable load on the Commission. However, no written explanation or reply was given to the Commission. The respondent have not only violated the provisions of the RTI Act but also have not complied with the Commission's directions. Thus, the Commission finds that Mr. Rafat Ali Khan, present CPIO, and Mr. Amit Kumar Kansal, the then CPIO, are responsible for obstructing the administration of justice and also withholding the information with mala fide.

6.1. In view of the aforementioned reasons and established mala fide on their part, Mr. Rafat Ali Khan, present CPIO, and Mr. Amit Kumar Kansal, the then CPIO, are found liable as per section 20 (1) of RTI Act. Hence, a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each may be imposed on both Mr. Rafat Ali Khan, present CPIO, and Mr. Amit Kumar Kansal, the then CPIO. The penalty of Rs. 10,000/- shall be deducted from each of the salaries of Mr. Rafat Ali Khan, present CPIO, and Mr. Amit Kumar Kansal, the then CPIO, (in two equal instalments), by the Public Authority and paid by way of demand draft drawn in favour of "PAO, CAT", New Delhi, forward the demand drafts addressed to the Deputy Registrar (CR-II), email: [email protected] Room No. 106, First Floor, Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi 110067. The first instalment of penalty amount should reach to the Commission by Page 4 of 6 30.02.2021 and the final instalment should reach the Commission by 30.03.2021. Further, the respondent is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide proper reply/information to the appellant against all points of the RTI application, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With these directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 22.01.20201 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 5 of 6 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. PRATHAMA U.P. GRAMIN BANK Head Officer, Ram Ganga Vihar, Phase II, Moradabad (U.P.) - 244 001 (EARLIER SARVA U.P. GRAMIN BANK) THE F.A.A, Prathama UP Gramin Bank, Head Office, Ram Ganga Vihar, Phase II, Moradabad-244001 CPIO :

1. THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER PRATHAMA U.P. GRAMIN BANK, Head Officer, Ram Ganga Vihar, Phase II, Moradabad (U.P.) - 244 001

2. THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER PRATHAMA U.P. GRAMIN BANK, Head Officer, Ram Ganga Vihar, Phase II, Moradabad (U.P.) - 244001 (for forwarding to the then C.P.I.O) SUSHIL KUMAR Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission