Rajesh Manikchand Jain vs Bank Of Maharashtra on 5 July, 2021

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Rajesh Manikchand Jain vs Bank Of Maharashtra on 5 July, 2021

1. The issues under consideration i.e. the reliefs sought by the complainant in his complaint dated 19.03.2019 due to alleged non-supply of information vide his RTI application dated 14.02.2019 are as under:-

(i) The CPIO may be subjected to departmental action by the top management of the bank for the defying the provisions of law for repeating the same approach towards disposal of applications under this Act.

(ii) The penalty as the CIC deemed fit to be imposed upon the CPIO for not providing the information to the complainant.

Page 1 of 4

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the complainant filed an application dated 14.2.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of Maharashtra, Pune, seeking inter alia following information:

(i) Number of officers from Scale-1 to Scale- 6 of Bank of Maharashtra got charge sheet for allegation of signing for sanctioning the credit proposal as MEMBER OF ZONAL LEVEL CREDIT COMMITTEE HEADED BY ZM (not as Chairman of ZLCC of ZM) from year 2012 to year 2018.

(ii) Out of point no. 1, provide number of officers got punishment.

(iii) Out of point no. 2, Provide break up in MAJOR and MINOR punishment.

(iv) Out of point no. 3, Provide scale wise break up (Scale-1 to Scale-6).

(v) Out of point no. 2, Provide number of officers got punishment of 'REDUCTION TO LOWER SCALE OF PAY (Demoted to lower scale).

(vi) Out of point no. 5, Provide scale wise information. (Scale-1 to Scale-6).

(vii) Certified copy of the movement of process note/noting on this RTI application.

The CPIO vide letter dated 15.03.2019 replied to the complainant. Dissatisfied with that, the complainant filed first appeal dated 18.03.2019. The First Appellate Authority did not pass any order. Aggrieved by that, the complainant filed a complaint dated 19.03.2019 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The complainant has filed the instant complaint dated 19.03.2019 inter alia on the grounds that the CPIO had denied the information with ulterior motives and to shield Senior Officers.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 15.03.2019 that no such data was maintained. The FAA did not pass any order.

5. The complainant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Aditya Prakash, DGM & CPIO, Bank of Maharashtra, Pune attended the hearing through video conference.

Page 2 of 4

5.1. The complainant inter alia submitted that information sought was not provided by the respondent till the date of hearing. He also stated that denial of the information was not sustainable in the eyes of law.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that no such data was maintained for the information sought by the complainant. They further submitted that information sought was not specific and bank was not under obligation to maintain such information/data as requested.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observes that the respondent had replied to the complainant vide their letter dated 15.03.2019. However, the respondent in this case have denied the information on the ground that it was not maintained by the bank. It may not be out of place to mention that where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the RTI Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. In view of this and proper reply having been given by the respondent, there appears to be no merit in the complaint. Accordingly, the complaint is rejected.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ाा)) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 05.07.2021 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:

CPIO : BANK OF MAHARASHTRA HEAD OFFICE, LOKMANGAL, 1501, SHIVAJI NAGAR, PUNE - 411 005 THE F.A.A, BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, HEAD OFFICE, LOKMANGAL, 1501, SHIVAJI NAGAR, PUNE - 411 005 SH. RAJESH MANIKCHAND JAIN Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission