K C Ajayakumar vs Indian Overseas Bank on 13 February, 2023

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

K C Ajayakumar vs Indian Overseas Bank on 13 February, 2023

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 10.09.2020 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 09.06.2020 and first appeal dated 22.07.2020:-

Subject: appellant's complaint against Indian Overseas Bank before Banking Ombudsman, Thiruvananthapurm regarding banks additional claim of about Rs. 4 lakhs on Housing loan by K.C.Sindhu. Please furnish the following:

(i) Copies letters/advisories received by Indian Overseas Bank (IOB) from office of the Banking Ombudsman, Thiruvnanthapuram.

Page 1 of 6

(ii) Copies of all the letters sent to Hon'ble Banking Ombudsman about IOB's claim of about Rs.4 lakhs from him with regard to the above mentioned housing loan.

(iii) Copy of all the documents submitted by IOB before Hon'ble Banking Ombudsman in support of IOB's claim. (account statement not necessary)

(iv) Copies of all Office Notes, prepared by the bank related to his complaint with endorsements/notes there on if any and other documents with the bank in this regard. . (account statement not necessary)

(v) Copies of any supporting circulars/directives issued by RBI or Central Office of IOB Produced by IOB is support of banks huge claim of about Rs.4 Lakhs from the guarantor K.C. Ajayakumar.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 09.06.2020under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indian Overseas Bank, Kerala, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 20.07.2020 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 22.07.2020. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 21.08.2020 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 10.09.2020 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 10.09.2020inter 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 20.07.2020 and the same is reproduced as under:-

"Information sought for correspondence between Bank and Ombudsman are internal records of Bank. Internal office notes and these correspondence contains Page 2 of 6 information regarding safeguard of interest of bank will regard activities of staff disclosure of which is detrimental to the organization's interest, employee discipline and comment & observation made by the authorities. Hence exempted under section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act, 2005."

The FAA vide order dated 21.08.2020 agreed with the reply given by the CPIO.

Hearing on 15.09.2022:

4.1. The appellant attended the hearing through video conference and the respondent remained absent despite notice.

4.2. The Commission passed the following directions on 26.09.2022:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the appellant and perusal of records, observed thatthe respondent had not provided the requisite information. Moreover, the CPIO remained absent despite notice. In the absence of the respondent, the reasons for denial of information could not be ascertained. In view of the above, Ms. R Mahalakshmi, present CPIO and Shri Suresh V.H., the then CPIO, are show caused as to why penalty under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act may not be imposed upon each of them for not furnishing the requisite information. The present CPIO is given the responsibility to serve a copy of this order upon the then CPIO and secure his written explanations as well as his attendance on the next date of hearing. All written submissions may be uploaded on the Commission's web portal within 21 days. Meanwhile, the respondent is directed that suitable reply/information be made available to the appellant and a copy of the same be uploaded on the Commission's web portal."

Hearing on 10.01.2023

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Ms R Mahalakshmi, CPIO, Chennai and Shri Suresh V H., Thiruvananthapuram, Indian Overseas Bank, attended the hearing through video conference.

Page 3 of 6

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that his deceased wife Late K.C. Sindhu was the borrower and account holder for the loan sanctioned by the respondent bank. Besides, he was the guarantor for housing the loan account and after his wife's demise in March 2010, recovery was done from his account. He further stated that the respondent had provided partial information and insisted upon the remaining information including office notes, etc. 5.2 The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had submitted written explanations in response to the show cause notice dated 26.09.2022 vide letter dated 24.11.2022. They explained that based on the records and after consideration of the queries, they had replied to the RTI application bona fide while discharging their duties as designated CPIOs. They explained that there was no willful disobedience on their part in giving the reply. They further stated that due to an unexpected Dharna/agitation which came across in the main City Road in front of their Office, there was huge traffic and reached the venue for hearing after a delay of five minutes and the hearing had been completed by then. They re-visited and provided the following point-wise reply vide letter dated 24.11.2022 which is reproduced as under:

(i) "Information sought for are communication/correspondence between Bank and Ombudsman which are received by B.O. as quasi-judicial authority who has dealt with the complaint filed by the RTI application. Disclosure of such information is exempted under section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act, 2005.

(ii) Further, it is also exempted under section 8 (1) (j) of the Act as it contains details of officers who have dealt with the complaint in the bank.

(iii) Housing loan agreement and credit sanction advice of housing loan are enclosed.

(iv) Information sought for is office Notes prepared by our Bonk, which contains specific details with regard to internal guidelines rules, regulations of the Bank. It is also contains names of the officers who hove dealt with the matter in the Bonk. As these documents contain information regarding Page 4 of 6 safeguard of interest of Bonk and the employee details, they ore exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) and 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

(v) Relevant circular is already provided vide reply letter dated 20.07.2020."

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties, and perusal of records, observed that the respondent gave revised reply on 24.11.2022 and provided the copies of housing loan agreement, credit sanction advice of housing loan and copy of the circular. However, the respondent had not provided the copies of office notes and invoked exemption under provisions of section 8 (1) (d) and (j) of the RTI Act. It may be noted that the office notes were public records and may not be declined merely on the ground that they were internal in nature. The personal details such as names may be redacted, if necessary, and the notings may be disclosed to the appellant who was neither a stranger nor third party to the loan account. However, the respondent had provided the revised information and that being so, penal action may not be taken for error in judgment for decline of information in their earlier reply dated 20.07.2020. However, the information in respect of point no. (iv) of the RTI application be made available to the appellant within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order, after redacting names of officials, if any. In absence of any mala fide on the part of the CPIO, the show cause notices issued to Ms. R Mahalakshmi, present CPIO and Shri Suresh V.H., the then CPIO, are hereby 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) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक/Date: 13.02.2023 Authenticated true copy आर R. Sitarama Murthy ( . सीताराममूत ) उपपंजीयक Dy. Registrar ( ) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 5 of 6 Addresses of the parties:

The CPIO Indian Overseas Bank, IOB Building, M.G.Road, Thiruvanathapuram-695001, Kerala The CPIO Indian Overseas Bank, 763, New Building Annex, 3rd Floor, AnnaSalai, Chennai -600002, Tamil Nadu First Appellate Authority Indian Overseas Bank, 763, New Building Annex, 3rd Floor, AnnaSalai, Chennai -600002, Tamil Nadu Shri K C Ajayakumar, Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission