Akhilesh Saran Khusharia vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 6 July, 2023

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Akhilesh Saran Khusharia vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 6 July, 2023

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 22.12.2022 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 02.06.2022 and first appeal dated 18.07.2022:-

(i) Certified original full details regarding deduction of provident fund instalment from salary of undersigned in the period of April 2005 to March 2009.

(ii) Name, designation and address of competent officer who is authorized to forward EPF claim settlement of employee of KKGB Mainpuri which digital signature registered in EPFO Agra and dispatch date and number of digital signature certificate send to EPFO Agra.

(iii) Certified original photo copy of rank wise list of selected candidates as officer grade by BSRB in 1988 on behalf of that list KKG Bank appointed undersigned with other candidates as officer in KKG Bank, Mainpuri and those joined their duty on Page 1 of 4 01.11.1988 same day. The list is main ground to determine seniority among those officers who joined on same dated 01.11.1988.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 02.06.2022 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Aryavart Bank, Mainpuri, UP, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 21.06.2022. replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 18.07.2022. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 10.08.2022 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 22.12.2022 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 22.12.2022 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 21.06.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-

"i) Detailed Certified copy (IES) in reference to deduction of provident fund instalment from your salary in the period from April 2005 to March 2009 are enclosed herewith.

ii) The information required for is vague and not specific. Hence it is not possible to furnish the requisite information.

iii) Please be informed that information sought by you cannot be supplied as the information sought includes commercial confidence and available to a bank in its fiduciary relationship and information relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest.

Therefore, this information is exempted under 8(1)(d)(e) & (j) of RTI Act, 2005."

The FAA vide order dated 10.08.2022 agreed to the reply given by the CPIO with respect to point no. ii) and (iii). With respect to point no. (i), FAA directed, CPIO Mainpuri to resend certified copy of information furnished.

Page 2 of 4

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Om Prakash Gupta, Regional Manager and Ms. Shikha Rani, Law Manager, Aryavart Bank, Mainpuri attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had provided incomplete, misleading and unsatisfactory information. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the respondent public authority to provide complete information.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought by the appellant in point no. (ii) of the RTI application was vague and unspecified thus, it became impossible to furnish the requisite information. He stated that the information sought in point no. (iii) of the RTI application were related to the year 1988 and information/documents more than 34 years old were destroyed as per the record retention schedule and also the bank had gone through several mergers and amalgamations since then.

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 provided by respondent in response to RTI application was incomplete and evasive. The respondent during the course of hearing submitted that information more than 34 years old was destroyed as per their record retention schedule and the same was not available with them. In view of the above, the respondent is directed that the relevant records be searched again and if the information may not be located, in that eventuality, an affidavit may be filed before the Commission affirming that the information sought is not available with them; a copy of that affidavit be made available to the appellant within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With these observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक/Date: 05.07.2023 Page 3 of 4 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत ) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

THE CPIO: ARYAVART BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE MAINPURI, KATCHEHARY ROAD, MAINPURI, UP - 205001 THE CPIO ARYAVART BANK, HEAD OFFICE, A-2/46, VIJAY KHAND, GOMTI NAGAR, LUCKNOW-226010 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ARYAVART BANK, HEAD OFFICE, A-2/46, VIJAY KHAND, GOMTI NAGAR, LUCKNOW-226010 SHRI AKHILESH SARAN KHUSHARIA Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission