Central Information Commission
Shivjeet Singh vs State Bank Of India on 20 January, 2022
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायतसं या / Complaint No. CIC/SBIND/C/2019/647151
Mr. Shivjeet Singh ...िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
State Bank of India
Pension Processing Centre
Administrative Office Building
4th Floor, JC Road, Patna,
Bihar -800001
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 02-07-2018 FA : 09-08-2018 SA : 07-08-2019
CPIO : 19-07-2018 FAO : 11-09-2018 Hearing: 10-01-2022
ORDER
1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Patna, Bihar.The complainant seeking information is as under:-
"Kindly provide me the payment details made by SBI Bikramganj to my fathers SBI account and please state therein whether these payments made were in accordance with the Old Basic Pension (i.e. Rs.845/- Basic) or as per the revised PPO (Basic pension of Rs.2007/-")
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 19-07-2018 has provided information as sought by the complainant. Being dissatisfied with the same, the complainant has filed first appeal dated 09-08-2018 and requested that the information should be Page 1 of 4 provided to him. The FAA vide order dated observed that the sought information is very old and as per Bank's record retention policy, it is not mandated to be retained till date. However, the available records at the branch be searched and if the sought information is found, the CPIO is directed to provide it to the applicant or advise him accordingly and the appeal is disposed of accordingly. The complainant filed a complaint u/Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act.
Hearing:
3. The complainant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Ms. Nimisha Anand, CPIO/ AGM attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 04.01.2022 and the same has been taken on record.
5. The complainant submitted that the desired information has not been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 02.07.2018.
6. The respondent reiterated the reply given by the CPIO and submitted that the information sought by the complainant is beyond the record retention period. That an appropriate reply in this regard has already been given to the complainant.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the complainant has sought information related to payment details made by SBI Bikramganj to his father's SBI account and other queries related thereto. That the respondent vide their letter dated 19.07.2018 has already informed the complainant that the pension before 2006 was being paid through concerned branch only and the said branch was contacted for providing the data for the period from 01.04.1997 to 31.03.2006. However, the said branch has expressed his inability in providing the said data being more than 10 years old. Therefore, the requested information is not available in system database. Further, as per Bank's Document Retention Policy, Pension payment register is to be maintained for 5 years. That the reply as per available records has already been provided by the respondent.
8. This Commission further observes that while examining the complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005, the CIC has no jurisdiction to direct disclosure of Page 2 of 4 any information. This legal position has been authoritatively settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
"30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide.
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information.
37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
9. In view of the above, the Commission is of the opinion that prima facie there is no malafide intention of obstructing the information to the complainant, hence no action warranted under section 20 of the RTI Act.
10. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
11. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरजकु मारगु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु ा
सूचनाआयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 10-01-2022
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित)
Page 3 of 4
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
State Bank of India
Pension Processing Centre
Administrative Office Building
4th Floor, JC Road, Patna,
Bihar -800001
2. Mr. Shivjeet Singh
Page 4 of 4