R S Garg vs National Housing Bank (Nhb) on 20 February, 2019

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

R S Garg vs National Housing Bank (Nhb) on 20 February, 2019

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 12.12.2017 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 28.08.2017 and first appeal dated 16.10.2017:

(i) Whether any questionnaire was administered by the Investigating Officer in connection with the Preliminary Investigation relating to Office Note dated 27.01.2015 on Performance Linked Incentives to EDs of NHB,

(ii) lf yes, please provide a of copy of each of the reply received by the Investigating Officer to such questionnaire,

(iii) What is the action advised by the competent authority on the Preliminary Investigation Report,

(iv) Whether the said action as advised by the competent authority is complete, if not, whether the competent authority has fixed any time any time frame for completion of the action.

(v) Copy of the Preliminary investigation report as submitted by the Investigating Officer.

(vi) Date on which the letter dated 11.11.2016 tendered by R.S. Garg, ED vide entry No. 12201 was traced. The place or the officer from whose custody the said letter was traced. Whether any note was recorded on the recovery of the said letter from such place/person. If yes, a copy of such note.

(vii) Total number of application under RTI replied by the bank till 25.07.2017 and the number of pages supplied with them. What is the total amount collected towards photocopying charges in respect of number of pages supplied in connection with such applications.

(viii) How many bank's cars have been used by the Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer of the Bank in last two years? The name of the place where such cars have been used? How many 'personal drivers' Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer by the Bank has been permitted to engage since his joining the Bank,

(ix) What is the cost of the car purchased which have been used/are now being used by the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Bank since his joining

(x) The authority which has approved use of such cars by the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Bank.

(xi) Whether any permission was obtained from Government of India for;

acquiring membership of Lite Zone Membership Card from India Habitat Centre for EDs and MD&CEO of NFIB and their spouses,

(xii) Whether any such permission for acquiring membership of Lite Zone Membership Card from India Habitat Centre for EDs and MD&CEO of NFB and their spouses was obtained before or any time after sanctioning of the amount by DGM on 3.9.2015. If not, the authority under which DGM has sanctioned the amount for this purpose?

(xiii) Whether CTE type of inspection in the matter of purchase of 14 new cars initiated by Vigilance Cell vide its note dated 29.08.2016 is complete. if so, please provide a copy of the report.

(xiv) Whether any action has been taken by the CVO on the note dated i29.08.2016 recorded in the Accounts Department in the matter of purchase of car$ and acquisition of membership of IHC. If so, furnish details of the action taken,

(xv) How many memberships were initially allotted By IHC to NHB for use of its officials by virtue of it being located in IHC (xvi) What is the basis on which membership of India Habitat Centre was allotted to its officers by NIIB from time to time? Please provide copy of each of the note put up to the Board in this regard from time to time. (xvii) How many such membership was acquired without the approval of the Board. Please provide a copy of the note put up to the authorities in the Bank for acquisition of such membership and the amount paid per member? Please give details of the sanctioning authority including the source of the authority derived by it for such sanction. (xviii) The Date/s of the Board Meeting/ Remuneration Committee meeting ,in which the incentive payable for the years 2014-15,2015-16 and 2016-17 to CMD / MD & CEO/ED of the National Housing Bank was determined together with the amounts as determined. (xix) Copy of all file noting in connection with the issue of Charge Sheet to Radhey Shyam Garg, the then Executive Director of the Bank in 2016.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 28.08.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab & Sind Bank, Karnal. The CPIO replied on 27.09.2017. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant has filed first appeal dated 16.06.2017. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 13.11.2017. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 12.12.2017 before this Commission which is under consideration. The second appeal was listed for hearing before the Commission on 23.10.2018 but the same was adjourned upon the request of the appellant.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 12.12.2017 inter alia on the grounds that the information with regard to point no. 2 and 5 of RTI application i.e. reply to the questionnaire is not in the nature of commercial confidence, or trade secret or intellectual property; that the preliminary investigation report is also not in the nature of commercial confidence, or trade secret or intellectual property; that the CPIO being signatory to the said office note and the Appellate Authority being Investigating Officer, they are parties with conflict of interest in the matter. The appellant also contended that the information sought vide point no. 7, 16 and 17 of the RTI application have been deliberately denied.

4. The CPIO replied to the appellant on 27.09.2017 and stated that over a period of time, especially just before appellant's retirement from the Bank and thereafter, the appellant has been continuously filing RTI applications raising several queries bundles in a single RTI application on various matters pertaining to the Bank's functioning, personal information about other employees including senior management/ functionaries of the Bank. The CPIO quoted various CIC decisions such as Sh. Rajendra Singh vs CBl in complaint no. CIC/WB/C/2007/00967 dated 19.06.2009, Sh. Wasi Ul Haque v. UPSC appeal no. CIC/WB/A/2007/00967 dated 09.02.2010, vide which CIC has ruled that an applicant cannot raise multiple queries in one single application unless the queries pertain to one subject. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 13.11.2017 held that the response given by the CPIO was appropriate and provided information on point nos. 15, 16 and 17 of the RTI application.

5. The appellant and the respondent Mr. Sourav Seal, DGM & CPIO along with Mr. D.K. Barik, DGM (Law) and Mr. Harish Chander Manchanda, Advocate were present in person.

5.1 The appellant submitted that the reply given by the CPIO on point nos. 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 of the RTI application is not satisfactory. He further submitted that a charge-sheet is issued to him directing the authorities that all his payments to be blocked/withheld.

5.2 The respondent submitted that point-wise information was provided to the appellant on 27.09.2017. He further alleged that the appellant has filed two civil suits against the Bank claiming performance linked incentive and CAIIB increments and the same are pending for judicial determination and also claimed that the instant RTI application is appellant's 9th request wherein he seeks information pertaining to queries raised without degree of specificity and the concerned departments have to wriggle out to provide the information.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, feels that the information sought vide point nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the RTI application pertains to preliminary investigation and since no regular investigation was taken off, the appellant Mr. R.S. Garg has suffered at the hands of the respondent, hence the respondent is directed to provide complete information on point nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the RTI application, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this Order. Further, with regard to remaining points i.e., point nos. 7 to 19 of the RTI application, the Respondent has already answered, which is complete and further intervention is not required. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) Information Commissioner Date: 20.02.2019

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission