Central Information Commission
Mr. Pankesh Manubhai Patel vs Bank Of Baroda on 22 September, 2010
Central Information Commission
File No.CIC/SM/A/2010/000026, 27, 28, 29, 30, 652, 669 & 852
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Dated: 22 September 2010
Name of the Appellant : Shri Pankesh Manubhai Patel C/o. Bank of Baroda, Sarbhon Branch, Tal. Bardoli, Distt - Surat.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, Surat Region, 3rd Floor, Saifee Bldg., Nanpura, Dutch Road, Surat.
CPIO, Bank of Baroda, Baroda Corporate Centre, C26, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400 051.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Shri Rajesh Goel, Senior Manager,
(ii) Shri J.P. Mandpe
2. We heard all these eight appeals through videoconferencing. The Appellant was present in the Surat Studio of the NIC. The Respondents were present both in the Surat and Mumbai Studios. We heard their submissions.
3. In 8 separate applications, the Appellant had sought a variety of information but largely related to the action taken by the authorities on his CIC/SM/A/2010/000026, 27, 28, 29, 30, 652, 669 & 852 letters and representations addressed to various authorities within the Bank including the CMD. Although the CPIO had provided him with some information almost in all these cases, the Appellant has serious objections to the quality of information provided. Besides, he has also objections to the fact that the Bank claims not to have received many of his letters even though he had sent those through the Branch. On the other hand, the Respondents submitted that the CPIO concerned had responded to all the requests on the basis of available records and had not hidden any fact or information. After carefully considering the submissions, we would like to give the following directions to the CPIO:
(i) confirmation in a sworn affidavit that his letters addressed to the General Manager (HRM), Mumbai had indeed not been received even though these had been forwarded by the respective Branch;
(ii) a photocopy of the file in which the Appellant's letter addressed to the General Manager, Gujarat Operations, dated 24 May 2009 had been processed and disposed off, both in the office of the General Manager and in any other office to which this letter might have been endorsed for further necessary action;
(iii) the photocopies of the entire files in which the matters arising out of his queries in the appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2010/000028,namely, those dealing with selection and posting of Head Cashier I and Special Assistant, have been dealt with;
(iv) Allow the Appellant to inspect all the files relating to the queries contained in his RTIapplication dated 3 July 2009 in the appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2010/000029, namely, dealing with the appointment of Head Cashier I in the Kukermund Branch, etc.;
CIC/SM/A/2010/000026, 27, 28, 29, 30, 652, 669 & 852
(v) photocopies of the enclosures to the Investigation Report the copy of which has already been given to the Appellant;
(vi) allow inspection of the files in which his letter dated 17 January 2008 addressed to the General Manager (Vigilance) had been processed and dealt with and the files in which the selection of beneficiaries of the scheme contained in the Circular No. HO:BR:92:138 dated 12 May 2000 had been processed including all related documents, such as, the minutes of the meeting of the committee set up in this regard;
(vii) photocopies of the entire correspondence and records including the Investigation Report, if any, arising out of his letter dated 19 September 2008 addressed to the CMD under Sampark.
4. We direct the CPIO to provide the information, free of cost to the Appellant as above within 15 working days from the receipt of this order. Wherever the files and records have to be inspected, we direct him to arrange for such inspection on a mutually convenient date(s) within 20 working days from the receipt of this order. If after the inspection, the Appellant chooses to get photocopies of some records, the CPIO shall provide the same to him free of cost.
5. In one of the cases, namely, CIC/SM/A/2010/000669, the Appellant had prayed that proper action should be taken against the CPIO for not working within the framework of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. In this case, the CPIO had responded to the RTIapplication much beyond the stipulated period of 30 days. Unless the CPIO had any reasonable cause for this delay, he is to be penalized as per the provisions of Section 20(1) of the Right to Information CIC/SM/A/2010/000026, 27, 28, 29, 30, 652, 669 & 852 (RTI) Act. Therefore, we direct the CPIO concerned who had dealt with this RTIapplication to appear before us on 12 November 2010 at 11.00 a.m. in person through his representative and explain if he had any reasonable cause for the delay.
6. With the above direction, the appeal is disposed off.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Assistant Registrar CIC/SM/A/2010/000026, 27, 28, 29, 30, 652, 669 & 852