Rajendra Kumar Jain vs State Bank Of India on 15 February, 2022

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Rajendra Kumar Jain vs State Bank Of India on 15 February, 2022

Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta

                          के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                     Central Information Commission
                         बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
                      Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                      नई  द ली, New Delhi - 110067

ि तीय अपील सं या/Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2019/648600

Mr. Rajendra Kumar Jain                                ... अपीलकता /Appellant
                                  VERSUS
                                   बनाम
CPIO                                                   ... ितवादी/Respondent
State Bank of India
Regional-2, Jaipur Administrative
Office-1, A-5, Nehru Place, Tank Road
Jaipur, Rajasthan-302015

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-

RTI : 30-05-2019           FA    : 08-07-2019         SA      : 21-08-2019

CPIO : 03-07-2019          FAO : 24-07-2019           Hearing : 14-01-2022

                                 ORDER

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) State Bank of India, Jaipur, Rajasthan. The appellant seeking information is as under:-

Page 1 of 3

2. The CPIO vide letter dated 03-07-2019 has given reply to the as sought by the appellant. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has file first appeal dated 03-07-2019 on ground provide incomplete information and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAO order dated 24-07-2019 upheld CPIOs reply and disposed the appeal. He has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to him and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.

Hearing:

3. The appellant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Shri Dinesh, CPIO/ AGM attended the hearing through audio-call.

4. The appellant submitted his written submissions dated 06.01.2022 and the same has been taken on record.

5. The appellant stated that the desired information has not been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 30.05.2019. He further reiterated the factual matrix of the case and stated that he deposited a cheque drawn from his account of Bank of Baroda to another account of SBI and sum of Rs. 177 was deducted, in lieu of the said deposit, from both of his said accounts separately. He furthermore stated that he desires to know the rules & regulations under which such deductions were made. He furthermore submitted that respondent authority has failed to provide him the relevant information deliberately and malafidely charged him the said amount. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide him the copy of the relevant rules as sought in the instant RTI Application along with the refund of Rs. 354 which was wrongly deducted from his account in lieu of the cheque deposit.

6. The respondent submitted that relevant information was provided to the appellant on 03.07.2019, wherein he was duly informed that the cheque deposited by him was NON-CTS cheque and therefore, said amount was deducted. However, said deducted amount was refunded back into his account on 17.06.2019. He further submitted that whatever information was available on record was appropriately furnished to the appellant. Decision:

7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant is pursuing a grievance pertaining to a wrongful deduction of certain amount of Rs. 354 from his bank accounts and in respect of that he had filed an instant RTI Applications seeking clarity over the situation. The CPIO vide letter dated 03.07.2019 has duly Page 2 of 3 informed him the reason for said deduction and moreover, he affirmed that deducted amount has already been refunded into appellant's account. However, the Commission observes that copy of the rules and regulations has still not been provided to the appellant.

8. In view of the foregoing, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide the copy of relevant rules, regulations and/or circulars under which averred amount of Rs. 354 was deducted from the appellant's account as sought by him in his instant RTI Application, free of cost, via speed/registered post, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.

9. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.

10. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

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


                                                            नीरज कु मार गु ा)
                                        Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज           ा
                                                                सूचना आयु )
                                      Information Commissioner (सू

                                                         दनांक / Date : 21-01-2022
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित)

S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)


Addresses of the parties:

1.    CPIO
      State Bank of India

Regional-2, Jaipur Administrative Office-1, A-5, Nehru Place, Tank Road Jaipur, Rajasthan-302015

2. Mr. Rajendra Kumar Jain Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission