Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Bipinchandra Shivlal Mehta vs Union Bank Of India on 25 August, 2021

Author: Suresh Chandra

Bench: Suresh Chandra

                                        के    ीयसूचनाआयोग
                                Central Information Commission
                                      बाबागंगनाथमाग,मुिनरका
                                 Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                   नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067

ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/UBIND/A/2017/604901

Shri BipinchandraShivlal Mehta                                     ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                             VERSUS
                                              बनाम
CPIO, Union Bank of India,                                   ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Mumbai.

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 31.05.2017           FA    : 30.06.2017      SA: 09.08.2017        CNC : 14.03.2019

CPIO : 01.07.2017          FAO : No Order          Order : 13.02.2019 Hearing : 23.07.2021

                                           CORAM:
                                     Hon'ble Commissioner
                                   SHRI SURESH CHANDRA
                                          ORDER

(24.08.2021)

1. The issue under consideration is the complaint of non-compliance (CNC) of CIC's order dated 13.02.2019 in this matter.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 31.05.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Union Bank of India, Mulund (West), Mumbai, seeking following information:-

(i) Quantified basis/justification(performance)/full details for payment of performance linked cash incentive (under prescribed categories/campaigns) to the selected branches/offices/department/staff members under M.M. Zone Page 1 of 4 during the financial years 2009-10,2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-

15, 2015-16 and 2016-17.

(ii) Basis on which cash incentive was paid to Mr. Sunil Kogaonkar and Mr. Goplani while working in R.O. (N),

(iii) Performance of branches selected for payment of incentive to branches under M.M. Zone as per Retail Campaign during the year 2013-14 and performance of Sanpada branch for the same period,

(iv) Reasons why Sanpada branch was not selected for payment of any cash incentive.

The CPIO replied on 01.07.2017. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant has filed a first appeal on 30.06.2017. The First Appellate Authority did not pass any order. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed the second appeal dated 09.08.2017 before this Commission which is under consideration. The appellant filed second appeal dated 09.08.2017 which was disposed of vide order dated 12.02.2019 with the following directions:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, directs the respondent to provide general information i.e. guidelines/rules/regulations with regard to payment of cash incentive to the branches/offices/department/staff members and also upload the same on their website, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. As regards personal information of the third party, the Commission upholds the findings of the CPIO. Accordingly the appeal is disposed of."

3. The appellant vide letter dated 14.03.2019 filed complaint for non-compliance of the order of the Commission dated 13.02.2019.

4. The Registry of this Bench vide communication dated 27.03.2019 sought detailed comments of the respondent. However, the respondent did not provide any response.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Sunil, Law Officer and Mr. Jaydesh, CPIO & AGM, Union Bank of India, Bandra attended the hearing through video conferencing.

5.2. The respondent submitted that they did not have the relevant files for the case, therefore, they were unable to present the matter.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the respondent failed to comply with the Commission's order dated 12.02.2019 and that the respondent was unable to assist the Commission as they were no prepared with the relevant facts and records. It may not be out of place to mention that the respondent was served upon written notice and they had sufficient time to prepare for the matter and had opportunity to contact the Registry of this Bench. Therefore, the respondent was unable to confirm that they had acted incompliance of the Commission's order dated 12.02.2019. In view of the above, Shri Arun Kumar, present CPIO, and the then CPIO are show caused as to why penalty as per provisions under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act may not be imposed upon each of them for not furnishing the information and for not complying with the directions of the Commission's order dated 12.02.2019. All written submissions may be uploaded on the Commission's web portal within 21 days.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties Sd/-

Suresh Chandra (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/ Date: 24.08.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:

1. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Union Bank of India, Union Bank Building, 6th Floor, 66/80, Samachar Marg, Mumbai-400023.

2. Shri Bipinchandra Shivlal Mehta,

3. The First Appellate Authority, General Manager, Union Bank of India, FGM Office, 4th Floor, 66/80, M.S. Marg, Nariman, Mumbai-400023.