Central Information Commission
Jigeshkumar Prafullchandra Patel vs State Bank Of India on 30 October, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/124550
... अपीलकता/Appellant
Jigeshkumar
Parafullchandera VERSUS
Patel बनाम
CPIO:
The State Bank of India ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Gandhinagar
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 20.12.2021 FA : 08.03.2022 SA : 28.05.2023
CPIO : 27.01.2022 FAO : 05.04.2022 Hearing : 28.10.2024
Date of Decision: 29.10.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.12.2021 seeking information on the following points:
I have received confirmation that my account statement and other information with SBI bank was divulged to unauthorized persons. The breach of privacy regarding my bank account occurred and the information was shared with an unauthorized person(s) by some SBI employees at your branch.Page 1 of 5
(i) Provide me the itemised detailed list of information accessed and downloaded by employees at your branch.
(ii) Name of the employees accessed and downloaded my all account information.
(iii) When the Information was accessed including all the dates and time?
(iv) Whom the information was handed over to?
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 27.01.2022 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"We advise that we have already replied to you all the points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 vide our letter no. AGM/AAO-VI/RTI/37 dated 05.01.2021, AGM/AAO- VI/RTI/46 dated 19.03.2021, AGM/AAO-VI/RTI/55 dated 08.06.2021 and AGM/GAO-II/RTI/58 dated 15.07.2021 in this regard."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.03.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 05.04.2022 has observed as under:-
"The appeal is hereby considered as per the provisions of Right to information Act, 2005. CPIO & AGM, Regional Business Office II, Gandhinagar dealt with the RTI application. It has been observed that the CPIO has not dealt with the said application point wise and the right context, Therefore, the CPIO is directed to re-examine the RTI application and point wise deal with the same within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
A copy of this order is being forwarded to the CPIO as well for his information."Page 2 of 5
4. Subsequently, the CPIO replied vide letter dated 24.10.2024 provided the point wise reply:-
(i) Since all the accounts are maintained at Core Banking Platform where any branch of the country can access any account from anywhere. There may be various non-financial reasons to access any account in today's environment.
No such record/documents is maintained at Branch end, as per Sec 2(i) of RTI Act.
(ii) All the employee all over India who have CBS access rights are authorized to download the statement. However, it cannot be certified that the statement of the account had been downloaded in all the instances.
No such record/documents is maintained at Branch end, as per Sec 2(i) of RTI Act.
(iii) All the employee all over India who have CBS access rights are authorized to download the statement. However, it cannot be certified that the statement of the account had been downloaded in all the instances.
No such record/documents is maintained at Branch end, as per Sec 2(i) of RTI Act.
(iv) Since all the accounts are maintained at Core Banking Platform where any branch of the country can access any account from anywhere. There may be various non-financial reasons to access any account in today's environment.
No such record/documents is maintained or exists at Branch end, as per Sec 2(i) of RTI Act.
(v) No such record/documents is maintained or exists at Branch end, as per Sec 2(i) of RTI Act.
Page 3 of 55. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 28.05.2023
6. The appellant remained present through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Neeraj Joshi CPIO, Mr. Tanuj Mishra Law officer attended the hearing through video conference.
7. The appellant inter alia submitted that the Respondent has provided incorrect, misleading and vague response to RTI application in order to cover up the professional misconduct and breach of privacy of account information.
8. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that in compliance of the First Appellate Authority's order a point-wise suitable reply as per the provisions of the RTI Act has been furnished to the Appellant vide letter dated 24.10.2024. He claimed that no document/record pertaining to the information sought by the Appellant is maintained at the Branch. Since all the accounts are maintained at Core Banking Platform where any branch of the country can access any account from anywhere. There may be various non-financial reasons to access any account in today's environment.
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that an appropriate reply has been furnished to the Appellant. Additionally, the Commission notes that the information sought if disclosed could endanger the life or physical safety of persons involved, thus exempted under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
Further, during the hearing, the Commission observed that the Appellant, exhibited a notably furious attitude which created significant obstructions in the smooth functioning of the proceedings. Despite multiple attempts by the Commission to maintain decorum and ensure an orderly hearing, the Appellant repeatedly interrupted the process by shouting and not allowing the Commission to hear the responses and justifications presented by the CPIOs'. The Commission acknowledges the emotional and mental distress the Appellant might be experiencing due to the circumstances surrounding his Page 4 of 5 case; however, it is imperative for the appellant to maintain composure and respect the procedural decorum of the hearings. The Commission advises the Appellant to refrain from such conduct in future proceedings to facilitate a fair and impartial hearing, ensuring that all parties have an equal opportunity to present their case. With the aforesaid observation the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलं गम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनां क/Date: 29.10.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कनल एस एस िछकारा, (%रटायड) Dy. Registrar (उप पं जीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO State Bank of India Regional Business Office -II Gandhinagar Administrative Office 4th Floor, Opp. New Sachivalaya, Sector 10/B, Gandhinagar Gujarat - 382010
2. Jigesh Kumar Prafullchandra Patel Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)