Ravindra Kumar vs Bank Of Maharashtra on 11 May, 2022

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Ravindra Kumar vs Bank Of Maharashtra on 11 May, 2022

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 24.01.2020 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 10.10.2019 and first appeal dated 02.12.2019:-

(i) Provide the base of explanation letter no. AX40/staff/2019-20 dated 29.04.2019 issued by ZM Indore.

(ii) The deputation given at Palasia branch by letter no. AX40/staff/24649/2018-19 dated 11.02.2019, provide the purpose of his deputation at Palasia branch without given any training of general banking while he is a direct recruited as specialize officers (IT Officer) in the Bank. Provide the clear purpose of his deputation.

Page 1 of 5

(iii) In your letter no. AX40/Insp/2019-20 dated 23.08.2019, you mentioned "The action is under process as per Bank's procedure and OSR", but you did not mention the name of department where is the action is under process? Provide (a) the department name and (b) details of progress in the matter.

(iv) In your letter no. AX40/staff/2019-20 dated 29.04.2019, you mentioned "the same supplier submitted fresh quotation for the same branch on 14.02.2019 and reported that the quotations were inflated to safeguard you vested interest to pay in cash as commission" provide the proof of report of the supplier.

(v) He has given his reply/letters dated 16.05.2019, 21.08.2019 and 06.09.2019 against your letter no. AX40/staff/2019-20 dated 29.04.2019 and he is continuously requesting to Zonal Manager Indore to inform outsider Anti-

Corruption Agencies to take necessary action in the above matter OR permit him to register the above case of corruption in ACT-CBI, Provide the status of his all request/letters against CBI enquiry in the matter.

(vi) Have you taken consent/permission from head office IT deptt. for his deputation at Palasia branch of general banking? Provide the copy of the consent/permission letter.

(vii) Provide attested copy of all purchased note and supply orders of marketing & publicity, GAD,IT premised departments under Indore Zone Since 2006 to till date.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 10.10.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of Maharashtra, Pune, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 15.10.2019 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 02.12.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 16.12.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 24.01.2020 before the Commission which is under consideration.

Page 2 of 5

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 24.01.2020 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 complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 15.10.2019 and the same is reproduced as under:-

"We wish to inform you that, as the information sought by you is pertaining to Indore Zone, the same is forwarded to CPIO, Indore Zone."

The FAA vide order dated 16.12.2019 forwarded the first appeal to the Indore Zone.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Ms Sanju Kumari, Deputy General Manager and CPIO, Shri Deeraj Mahire, Law Officer and Shri Aditya Prakash, CPIO, Bank of Maharashtra, Pune, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he was charge sheeted two times and in order to prove innocence in the court of law. He further submitted that in his departmental enquiry it was confirmed that no charge was proved against him and despite that he was demoted. He stated that he sought aforesaid information from the bank however neither the CPIO nor the FAA provide the desired information. He contended that he wanted the information on point nos. 5 and 7 of the RTI application only.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that RTI application and first appeal were not received by them. They further submitted that after receipt of the hearing notice they obtained the relevant records from the CIC and provided point-wise reply to the appellant vide letter dated 28.04.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-

(i) "Letter was issued as per Bank's procedure & Bank of Maharashtra (Officers) Service Regulations (OSR) 1979 guidelines.

(ii) Due to administrative exigency the action was taken.

(iii) The letter no. AX/40/Insp./2019-20 dated 23.08.2019 was issued in respond to your letter dated 21.08.2019.

Page 3 of 5

(iv) You had physically verified the quotation dated 14.02.2019 & other documents on 02.03.2021. Hence, No further response is necessary.

(v) Necessary action was taken as per bank's guideline.

(vi) Necessary communication was made in this context. Letter dated Lll02l20l9 enclosed here with.

(vii) Information sought by you is exempted under Section 8 (1) (d) and section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005."

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that after receipt of hearing notice, the respondent had provided point wise reply vide letter dated 28.04.2022. However, the appellant submitted that no reply/information was received by him. Moreover, there was considerable delay in providing reply to the RTI application which was viewed seriously by the Commission. The respondent is cautioned to be more careful in future while dealing with the RTI application. The appellant during the course of hearing pressed for the information sought on point nos. 5 and 7 of the RTI application only. The reply given by the respondent on point nos. 5 and 7 of the RTI application was incomplete and misleading. It may not be out of place to mention that the appellant was dealt with departmentally and the information sought was relevant to his case hence to comply with the principles of natural justice, the information may be given. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide the revised information on point nos. 5 and 7 of the RTI application to the appellant, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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: 10.05.2022
Authenticated true copy

R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)
                                                                                    Page 4 of 5
 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
Chief Manager Bank Of
Maharashtra Lokmangal 1501,
Shivaji Nagar Pune -5

The First Appellate Authority
 Zonal Manager
Bank Of Maharashtra
 Maharashtra Sahitya Sabha Bhavan
688, M G Road Indore- 452007

Ravindra Kumar




                                    Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission