Central Information Commission
Rajesh Manikchand Jain vs Bank Of Maharashtra on 1 June, 2023
Author: Suresh Chandra
Bench: Suresh Chandra
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/BOMAH/A/2020/686035
Rajesh Manikchand Jain ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Bank of Maharashtra
Pune
... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 15.07.2020 FA : 13.08.2020 SA : 17.09.2020 CNC: 12.12.2022
Order : 01.11.2022 Hearing:09.05.2023
CPIO : 10.08.2020 FAO : 08.09.2020
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
SHRI SURESH CHANDRA
ORDER
(01.06.2023)
1. The issue under consideration is the complaint of non-compliance (CNC) of CIC's order dated 01.11.2022 in this matter.
2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 15.07.2020 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of Maharashtra, Pune, seeking following information:
(i) With reference to reply of CPIO no. AX1/CPIO/RTI/2020-21/20093 dated 14.07.2020 of RTI no. BOMAH/R/E/20/00255 provide date of information to him regarding composite case in case of charge sheet no. AX1/ST/DM/E-
512/173/2015-16 dated 25.05.2015 issued by Chairman & Managing Director as Disciplinary Authority.
Page 1 of 4(ii) With reference to reply of point no. 2 of the above said RTI, provide rule/provision of BOMOE (D&A) Regulation/OSR regarding change of disciplinary authority in intervening period in case of charge sheet no. AX1/ST/DM/E-512/173/2015-16 dated 25.05.2015, due to demotion of scale VII officer to Scale V.
(iii) Provide rule/provision of BOMOE (D&A) Regulation/OSR regarding common inquiry proceedings of all officers in case of composite case of charge sheet no. AX1/ST/DM/E-512/173/2015-16 dated 25.05.2015 to him.
(iv) Certified copy of the processing of this RTI application.
The CPIO vide letter dated 10.08.2020 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 13.08.2020. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 08.09.2020 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 17.09.2020 before the Commission which was under consideration. Thereafter, the appellant filed a complaint for non-compliance dated 12.12.2022 which is for consideration.
3. The appellant has filed the instant complaint dated 12.12.2022 inter 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 10.08.2020 and the same is reproduced as under:-
(i) "There is no provision in Bank of Maharashtra Officer Employee (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 for informing the Charge Sheeted Officer Employee about the composite case.
(ii) Regulation 5 of Bank of Maharashtra Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 provide for the appointment of Disciplinary Authority.
(iii) As per Regulation 10 of Bank of Maharashtra Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976, common proceedings can be held where two or more officer employees are concerned in the case. Disciplinary Authority has discretion to direct for common proceedings. In respect of case pertaining to charge sheet Page 2 of 4 no. AX1/ST/DM/E-512/173/2015-16 dated 25.05.2015, no such order was issued by the Disciplinary Authority.
(iv) This letter is reply to RTI application."
The FAA vide order dated 08.09.2020 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Hearing on 11.10.2022:
4.1. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Gaurav Tyagi, CPIO, Bank of Maharashtra, Pune attended the hearing through video conference.
4.2. The Commission passed the following directions on 01.11.2022:
"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the reply given by the respondent in respect of point no. (i) of the RTI application was evasive. However, during the course of hearing, the respondent admitted that a composite charge sheet was served upon the appellant. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to re- visit point no. (i) of the RTI application and give revised information to the appellant within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. However, no intervention is called for in respect of the remaining points of the RTI application. With these observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of."
Hearing on 09.05.2023:
5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Gaurav Tyagi, CPIO, Bank of Maharashtra, Pune attended the hearing through video conference. 5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had complied with the directions of the Commission vide their letter dated 01.11.2022 and replied to point no. (i) of the RTI application, as directed by the Commission. They informed that there were no provisions in the bank of Maharashtra Officer Employee (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 for informing the charge sheeted officer/employee about giving the information regarding the composite case. Further, they reiterated that a composite charge sheet was served upon the appellant. They further submitted that in addition to their earlier replies and submissions, they had written explanations again on 26.04.2023 that the CPIO Page 3 of 4 could not have created information and on the basis of information received from the concerned department, the CPIO had replied to the appellant earlier on 10.08.2020.
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that the respondent had complied with the Commission's order dated 01.11.2022, vide their letter dated 14.12.2022. They further stated that they had submitted explanations in response to the show cause notice issued through the hearing notice, vide their letter dated 26.04.2023. The respondent categorically informed in response to point no. (i) of the RTI application that there were no provisions in the Bank of Maharashtra Officer Employee (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 for informing the charge sheeted officer/employee about giving the information regarding the composite case. That being so, the appellant may approach an appropriate forum for redressal of his grievances, if any. The written explanations were found reasonable and satisfactory. In absence of any mala fide on the part of the CPIO, no penal action can be taken against them. Therefore, show cause notice issued against Shri Gaurav Tyagi, CPIO, is hereby dropped.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
सुरेश चं ा)
(Suresh Chandra) (सु ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 01.06.2023
Authenticated true copy
R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)
Addresses of the parties:
The CPIO
Bank of Maharashtra
Head Office 'Lokmangal'
1501, Shivajinagar
Pune, Maharashtra - 411005
First Appellate Authority
Bank of Maharashtra
Yashomangal', 1183/A.F.C. Road
Shivajinagar, Pune - 411005
Rajesh Manikchand Jain
Page 4 of 4