Central Information Commission
D. S. Negi vs State Bank Of India on 22 January, 2021
Author: Suresh Chandra
Bench: Suresh Chandra
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायतसं या / Complaint No.CIC/SBIND/C/2019/102924
D. S. Negi ...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: State Bank of India
Almora, Uttarakhand ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 18.10.2018 FA : Not on Record Complaint : 11.01.2019
CPIO : 17.11.2018 FAO : Not on Record Hearing : 06.01.2021
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
SHRI SURESH CHANDRA
ORDER
(22.01.2021)
1. The issues under consideration i.e., the reliefs sought by the complainant in his complaint dated 11.01.2019 due to alleged non-supply of information vide his RTI application dated 18.10.2018are as under:-
Take appropriate action against the concerned officials as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the complainant filed an application dated 18.10.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Page 1 of 4 Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Regional Office, Almora, seeking following information:
(i) अ धकार / कमचा रय के कुल वीकृत पद व र त पद क सं या
(ii) अ धकार / कमचा रय से स बं धत न न ता लका के अनस
ु ार ववरण प
(iii) बक काउं टस व के बन क सं या व स बं धत पटल पर होने वाले बक से स बं धत काय
का ववरण
(iv) बक से स बं धत वह काय िजसके लए ल य नधा रत कये गए ह के अंतगत
नधा रत ल य व अधाव धक पू त का ववरण
The CPIO vide letter dated 17.11.2018 replied to the complainant. Aggrieved by this, the complainant filed a complaint dated 11.01.2019 before this Commission which is under consideration.
3. The complainant has filed the instant complaint dated 11.01.2019 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was incomplete, false and misleading.
4. The CPIO vide letter dated 17.11.2018 gave point-wise reply wherein they provided the information on point no. 1 of the RTI application and denied the information on point no. 2 of the RTI application under section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act. The CPIO further stated that information sought on point no. 3 and 4 of the RTI application did not fall within the definition of "information" as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.
5. The complainant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Mahesh Giri Goswami, Manager, HR, State Bank of India, Almora, attended the hearing through video conference.
5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had already furnished details of vacant posts of the employees/officers of Almora and Pandekhola Branches as sought on point no. 1 of the RTI application. They further Page 2 of 4 submitted that against point nos. 2 of the RTI application the complainant sought details of employees/ officers like name and designations of the employees working in Almora and Pandekhola Branch of the respondent bank, their date of birth, educational qualifications, details of appointment including date of appointment and promotions details etc. which were denied on the ground of personal information of third party exempted under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. They further contended that information sought on point nos. 3 and 4 of the RTI application did not fall within the definition of "information" as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the respondent have given point-wise reply/information to the complainant within the stipulated time vide their letter dated 17.11.2018. Moreover, the complainant has neither filed any written objection nor presented himself before the Commission to controvert the submissions made by the respondent. Hence, the submissions made by the respondent was taken on record. Further, in the absence of any mala fide on part of the respondent in responding to the RTI application, any action against him may not be reasonable. There appears to be no merit in the complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेशचं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) दनांक/Date: 22.01.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत ) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:
CPIO :
1. STATE BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE, REGION - 2, HOTEL SHIKHAR, MALL ROAD, ALMORA, UTTARAKHAND THE F.A.A, GENERAL MANAGER (NW-2), STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, 11, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 001 D. S. Negi Page 4 of 4