Central Information Commission
Bimal Kishore vs State Bank Of India on 30 March, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 302, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gang Nath Marg,
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Shri Bimal Kishore vs. CPIO, State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal
Office-II, New Delhi
Date of Hearings: 19.03.2018, 22.03.2018 and 26.03.2018
Date of Decision: 28.03.2018
File nos.
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137613 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137824
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137815 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136598
CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136580 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136561
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136638 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136594
CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136576 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137821
CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136577 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137816
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137820 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137594
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137814 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137592
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137823 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137812
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137632 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136587
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136646 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136590
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136622 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137603
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136630 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136633
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137631 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136654
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137615 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136588
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137623 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136589
CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136570 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136556
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137819 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136609
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137606 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136612
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137610 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137601
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137608 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136631
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137602 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/180705
CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136613 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136603
CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136611 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137618
CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136615 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136625
CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136617 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136564
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137849 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136565
CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136614 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136584
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136600 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137825
CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136568 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136586
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137617 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136547
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137611 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136560
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137598 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137841
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137600 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137850
Page 1 of 57
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136652 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137847
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137629 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137845
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136629 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137844
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137813 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137843
CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136553 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136642
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137607 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136640
CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136551 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137597
CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136549 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137836
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137627 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137838
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137620 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136604
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137621 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136601
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137626 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136583
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137817 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136591
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136632 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136592/C
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137840 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136648
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137810 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136637
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137852 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136635
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137595 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136599
CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136582 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137830
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137826 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137831
CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136610 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136571
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137827 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136574
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137818 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137828
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136649 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136572
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136644 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136558
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137596 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136620
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136623 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136621
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136653 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136627
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136628 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136608
CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136606 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136557
Relevant dates emerging from the Appeals/complaints:
Second
RTIs: CPIOs: FAs: FAAOs: Appeals/
Complaints
17.08.2016 16.09.2016 04.11.2016 22.12.2016
23.08.2016 27.09.2016 04.11.2016 22.12.2016
06.04.2016 13.05.2016 21.06.2016 28.07.2016
06.04.2016 13.05.2016 21.06.2016 28.07.2016
06.04.2016 13.05.2016 21.06.2016 28.07.2016
06.04.2016 13.05.2016 21.06.2016 28.07.2016
23.08.2016 27.09.2016 04.11.2016 22.12.2016 26.05.2017
23.08.2016 27.09.2016 04.11.2016 22.12.2016 and
23.08.2016 27.09.2016 04.11.2016 22.12.2016 30.05.2017
23.08.2016 27.09.2016 04.11.2016 22.12.2016
Page 2 of 57
06.04.2016 13.05.2016 21.06.2016 28.07.2016
20.11.2015 19.12.2015 31.12.2015 01.02.2016
02.01.2016 30.01.2016 28.03.2016 27.04.2016
23.08.2016 27.09.2016 04.11.2016 22.12.2016
17.08.2016 16.09.2016 04.11.2016 22.12.2016
17.08.2016 16.09.2016 04.11.2016 22.12.2016
28.03.2016,
22.02.2016 21.06.2016 28.07.2016
16.01.2017
23.08.2016 27.09.2016 04.11.2016 22.12.2016
23.08.2016 27.09.2016 04.11.2016 22.07.2016
12.04.2016 16.05.2016 21.06.2016 28.07.2016
22.02.2016 19.05.2016 21.06.2016 28.07.2016
12.04.2016 16.05.2016 21.06.2016 28.07.2016
23.08.2016 27.09.2016 04.11.2016 22.12.2016
23.08.2016 27.09.2016 04.11.2016 22.12.2016
12.04.2016 16.05.2016 21.06.2016 28.07.2016
12.04.2016 16.05.2016 21.06.2016 28.07.2016
23.08.2016 27.09.2016 04.11.2016 22.12.2016
06.04.2016 13.05.2016 21.06.2016 28.07.2016
06.04.2016 13.05.2016 21.06.2016 28.07.2016
18.04.2016 30.04.2016 21.06.2016 28.07.2016
06.04.2016 10.05.2016 21.06.2016 28.07.2016
12.04.2016 16.05.2016 21.09.2016 28.07.2016
06.04.2016 13.05.2016 21.09.2016 28.07.2016
06.04.2016 13.05.2016 21.09.2016 28.07.2016
02.01.2016 30.01.2016 28.03.2016 27.04.2016
15.04.2016 19.05.2016 21.06.2016 28.07.2016
12-04-2016 28-09-2016 04-11-2016 22-12-2016
17-08-2016 28-09-2016 04-11-2016 22-12-2016
17-08-2016 28-09-2016 04-11-2016 22-12-2016
31-12-2015 26-02-2016 21-06-2016 28-07-2016
31-12-2015 26-02-2016 21-06-2016 28-07-2016
31-12-2015 30-01-2016 21-06-2016 28-07-2016
31-12-2015 26-02-2016 21-06-2016 28-07-2016
31-12-2015 26-02-2016 21-06-2016 27-04-2016
23-11-2015 19-12-2016 22-01-2016 01-03-2016
11-12-2015 29-01-2016 21-06-2016 28-07-2018
22-02-2016 07-03-2016 21-06-2016 28-07-2018
22-02-2016 07-03-2016 21-06-2016 28-07-2018
12-04-2016 25-05-2016 17-08-2016 03-12-2018
31-12-2015 26-02-2016 21-06-2016 28-07-2016
12-04-2016 16-05-2016 21-06-2016 28-07-2016
22-02-2016 19-05-2016 21-06-2016 28-07-2016
17-08-2016 16-09-2016 04-11-2016 22-12-2016
17-08-2016 16-09-2016 04-11-2016 22-12-2016
18-04-2016 27-05-2016 21-06-2016 28-07-2016
18-04-2016 27-05-2016 21-06-2016 28-07-2016
Page 3 of 57
12-04-2016 16-05-2016 21-06-2016 28-07-2016
23-08-2016 27-09-2016 04-11-2016 22-12-2016
31-12-2015 30-01-2016 28-03-2016 27-04-2016
23-08-2016 27-09-2016 04-11-2016 22-12-2016
31-12-2015 30-01-2016 28-03-2016 27-04-2016
17-08-2016 28-09-2016 04-11-2016 22-12-2016
31-12-2015 30-01-2016 28-03-2016 27-04-2016
23-11-2015 23-12-2015 02-01-2016 02-02-2016
17-08-2016 16-09-2016 04-11-2016 22-12-2016
17-08-2016 16-09-2016 04-11-2016 22-12-2016
17-08-2016 16-09-2016 04-11-2016 22-12-2016
17-08-2016 16-09-2016 04-11-2016 22-12-2016
23-08-2016 27-09-2016 04-11-2016 22-12-2016
22-02-2016 28-03-2016 21-06-2016 28-07-2016
22-02-2016 18-04-2016 17-08-2016 03-12-2016
23-08-2016 27-09-2016 04-11-2016 22-12-2016
23-08-2016 27-09-2016 04-11-2016 03-12-2016
12-04-2016 16-05-2016 21-06-2016 28-07-2016
06-04-2016 13-05-2016 21-06-2016 28-07-2016
23-08-2016 27-09-2016 04-11-2016 22-12-2016
18-04-2016 27-05-2016 21-06-2016 28-07-2016
23-08-2016 27-09-2016 04-11-2016 22-12-2016
23-08-2016 27-09-2016 04-11-2016 22-12-2016
12-04-2016 16-05-2016 21-06-2016 28-07-2016
06-04-2016 10-05-2016 21-06-2016 28-07-2016
12-04-2016 16-05-2016 21-06-2016 28-07-2016
23-11-2015 19-12-2015 31-12-2015 01-02-2016
12-04-2016 16-05-2016 21-06-2016 28-07-2016
23-11-2015 23-12-2015 01-01-2016 02-02-2016
12-04-2016 16-05-2016 21-06-2016 28-07-2016
12-04-2016 16-05-2016 21-06-2016 28-07-2016
17-08-2016 16-09-2016 04-11-2016 22-12-2016
23-11-2015 23-12-2015 02-01-2016 02-02-2016
22-02-2016 28-03-2016 21-06-2016 28-07-2016
22-02-2016 19-05-2016 21-06-2016 28-07-2016
06-04-2016 10-05-2016 21-06-2016 28-07-2016
22-08-2016 27-09-2016 04-11-2016 22-12-2016
06-04-2016 10-05-2016 21-06-2016 28-07-2016
23-11-2015 23-12-2015 02-01-2016 02-02-2016
02-01-2016 30-01-2016 28-03-2016 27-04-2016
06-04-2016 07-05-2016 17-08-2016 03-12-2016
17-08-2016 01-10-2016 04-11-2016 03-12-2016
12-04-2016 17-05-2016 17-08-2016 03-12-2016
12-04-2016 17-05-2016 17-08-2016 03-12-2016
06-04-2016 10-05-2016 17-08-2016 03-12-2016
06-04-2016 10-05-2016 17-08-2016 03-12-2016
15-04-2016 18-05-2016 21-06-2016 28-07-2018
Page 4 of 57
15-04-2016 18-05-2016 21-06-2016 28-07-2018
15-04-2016 19-05-2016 21-09-2016 28-07-2016
31-12-2015 30-01-2016 17-08-2016 03-12-2016
02-01-2016 30-01-2016 17-08-2016 03-12-2016
12-04-2016 16-05-2016 21-06-2016 28-07-2016
12-04-2016 16-05-2016 21-06-2016 28-07-2016
06-04-2016 13-05-2016 21-06-2016 28-07-2016
06-04-2016 13-05-2016 21-06-2016 28-07-2016
06-04-2016 13-05-2016 21-06-2016 28-07-2016
06-04-2016 13-05-2016 21-06-2016 28-07-2016
06-04-2016 10-05-2016 21-06-2016 28-07-2016
06-04-2016 10-05-2016 21-06-2016 28-07-2016
12-04-2016 16-05-2016 21-06-2016 28-07-2016
23-08-2016 27-09-2016 04-11-2016 22-12-2016
23-08-2016 27-09-2016 04-11-2016 22-12-2016
22-02-2016 19-05-2016 21-06-2016 28-07-2016
06-04-2016 13-05-2016 21-06-2016 28-07-2016
23-08-2016 27-09-2016 04-11-2016 22-12-2016
06-04-2016 13-05-2016 21-09-2016 28-07-2016
02-01-2016 30-01-2016 28-03-2016 27-04-2016
20-11-2015 19-12-2015 31-12-2015 01-02-2016
20-11-2015 19-12-2015 31-12-2015 01-02-2016
23-11-2015 23-12-2015 02-01-2016 02-02-2016
15-04-2016 19-05-2016 21-06-2016 28-07-2016
02-01-2016 30-01-2016 28-03-2016 27-04-2016
ORDER
1. The appellant/complainant filed the above mentioned 128 appeals/complaints against the CPIO, State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi with respect to his 128 RTI applications. All these appeals/complaints are being clubbed together for hearing and disposal to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137613
2. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know whether the 'first-come-first-go' policy as per the Redeployment-Cum-Transfer Policy for Award Staff, was applicable in case of transfer of the appellant/complainant across the branches of the Bank.
Page 5 of 57File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137815
3. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know the name of the person who called the complainant and eight others to the Branch as mentioned in DAO-II/R-7/COMP/4121, dated 18.12.2012.
File No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136580
4. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know the process followed as per the SBI Rule Book/ Manual/ Hand Book/ Circular/ Office Order/ Memos, to appoint Investigating Officer in the enquiry dated 11th January, 2011 against him along with the copy of relevant document.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136638
5. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking information pertaining to the response given by staff on the memo served under BR/178, dated 19th September, 2010 upon an award staff of SBI Moti Bagh Branch, including, whether the statement/response of the staff was correct and in line with the policy/procedure of SBI Rule Book/ Manual/ Hand Book/ Circular/ Office Order/ Memos.
File No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136576
6. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi Page 6 of 57 seeking to know whether his case fell under the category of "fraud" in the enquiry conducted by the Bank against him.
File No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136577
7. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know the 'criteria' followed by the Bank as per its Rule Book/Circular/Manual to classify the enquiry against him as "non- vigilance" along with the complete list of documents.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137820
8. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know whether the Regional Manager (Jhirka Branch, Ferozpur) or the AGM (for award staff) was the disciplinary authority on 26th September, 2011.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137814
9. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know whether he was punished in the case DAO-II/R- 7/COMP/4121, dated 18th December, 2012, on mere allegation of the complainant or on some concrete grounds, including, the documentary evidence for the same.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137823
10. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi Page 7 of 57 seeking, (i) the name of the person who rephrased the sentence and added the word "unpleasant", (ii) whether his application dated 18th January 2013 was considered before final decision by the Disciplinary Authority, and (iii) the name of the person(s) who signed DAO-II/R-7/COMP/4121, dated 18th December, 2012 and DAO-II/R-1/ADMIN/COMP/DIS/957, dated 6th May, 2013, as per the records held by the Bank.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137632
11. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know whether an award staff can be penalized by delaying his promotion by two years in case the outcome of enquiry against him/her is "NO ACTION", as decided by the disciplinary authority.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136646
12. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know the designation/post of the disciplinary authority in the Bank in respect of the enquiry pertaining to File No. DAO-I/R- II/Fraud/4257, dated 11th January 2011.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136622
13. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking a copy of the enquiry report and the action taken report along with the testimony, if any, in respect of case/enquiry DAO-I/R-II/Fraud/4257 dated 11th January 2011, against the appellant/complainant.
Page 8 of 57File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136630
14. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking the reasons for not following the CVC guidelines on disciplinary proceedings for providing a copy of the enquiry report to the employee concerned.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137631
15. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know whether an employee, award/supervising/subordinate, can be punished in any manner by denying him the employment benefits such as, salary/promotion/allowances, as prescribed by SBI, in case "NO ACTION" is recommended against him in a departmental enquiry.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137615
16. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know 'in what capacity Mr. Devender Sandhu erstwhile Branch Manager, SBI, Vasant Kunj at material time (i.e. 11.01.2011) was involved in/ with case/ enquiry pertaining to Shri Bimal Kishore under file no. DAO- 1/B-II/Fraud/4257 dated 11.01.2011.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137623
17. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking a certified copy of the investigation report submitted by Mr. Page 9 of 57 Devender Sandhu of Vasant Kunj Branch in connection with enquiry against Shri Bimal Kishore.
File No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136570
18. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know 'is SBI in possession of any document held at any of the branches, administrative offices, such as RBO, DAO/ZO, LHO, Corporate Head Quarters or any other office deemed to be banks office for any administrative purpose with respect to award staff stating that Shri Bimal Kishore i.e. applicant has been punished as a result of action taken by disciplinary authority with reference to file No. DAO-I/R-II/Fraud/4257 dated 11.01.2011 between 01.01.2011 and 31.12.2012'.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137819
19. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know under which service rule SBI proceeded in the matter and punished Shri Bimal Kishore, i.e. applicant (DAO-II/R- I/Admn/Comp/DIS/957 dated 06.05.2013) with reference to DAO-II/R- 7/Comp/4121 dated 18.12.2012.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137824
20. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office, New Delhi seeking detailed procedure followed by SBI between 18.12.2012 and 06.05.2013 before concluding that Shri Bimal Kishore is to be punished along with documentary evidence in support and a copy of para 8(a) of memorandum of settlement of disciplinary action and procedure for workman dated 10.04.2002.
Page 10 of 57File No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136598
21. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office, New Delhi stating that as per point 5.2(iv)(b) of Chapter on "Debarment Policy" of HR Handbook for award staff a person will lose seniority if he/she has been 'warned/censured' on conclusion of disciplinary proceedings and sought a certified copy of a letter from disciplinary authority at material time on the basis of which Shri Bimal Kumar was denied promotion to Senior Assistant in 2010.
File No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136561
22. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office, New Delhi seeking the name, designation of the authority who communicated/authorized such communication along with date, with reference to letter No. 262/2011 dated 23.02.2011 wherein it was stated that a text message was received by Firozpur Jhikrka (Br Code 01071) Branch Manager Mr. P.C. Bairwa from its applicable RBO with regard to a case pertaining to Shri Bimal Kishore i.e. applicant in case No. DAO-I/R-II/Fraud/4257 which is in deviation from normal/standard prescribed practice and mode of communication.
File No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136594
23. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office, New Delhi seeking to know whether point no. 5.2(iv)(a) of Chapter on "Debarment Policy" of HR Handbook for award staff was/is applicable to Shri Bimal Kishore, i.e. applicant or not with reference to disciplinary proceedings reference No. DAO-I/R-II/Fraud/4257 dated 11.01.2011 held by the SBI.
Page 11 of 57File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137821
24. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office, New Delhi stating that with reference to annexure of DAO-II/COMP/4121 dated 18.12.2012 one so called AGM came to SBI, Palam Colony Branch and gave Shri Bimal Kishore three questions in writing through Mr. Birbal Prasad, Branch Manager, Palam Colony as part of the shoddy botched up enquiry conducted prior to the said letter in consideration, Shri Bimal Kishore i.e. applicant immediately replied in writing and handed over the A4 sheet of paper to Branch Manager, Palam Colony. But when the above letter was served upon Shri Bimal Kishore, i.e. applicant, it was surprising that annexure was not carrying any date and signature of any authority and sought to know whether the subject annexure was valid and whether Shri Bimal Kishore's reply was taken into consideration before serving him the said letter on 18.12.2012.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137816
25. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi while referring DAO-II/R-7/COMP/4121, dated 18.12.2012 seeking copies of documents on the basis of which the Regional Manager came to the conclusion that the appellant/complainant rebuffed the complainant for having visited the branch.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137594
26. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking copy of documentary evidence mentioning that all process as prescribed in Rule Book was followed in awarding punishment to the Page 12 of 57 appellant/complainant vide letter No. DAO-II/R-1/ADMIN/COMP/DIS/957 dated 06.05.2013.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137592
27. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking total no. of Assistants promoted to Senior Assistants as per the form/performa jointly held and signed by Chief Manager (HR) DAO-I and DAO-II pertaining to Career Progression Scheme for June 2012 along with the comments written in the remarks column against the appellant/complainant's name.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137812
28. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking copy of records determining that Ritika Dey and Rikta Dey are the same person and Shri Bimal Kishore and Shri Vimal Kishore are the same person.
File No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136587
29. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking a copy of the memorandum of settlement on disciplinary action procedure dated 10.04.2002 for workman on the basis of which the appellant/complainant was warned/censured in an enquiry conducted by Region-I, DAO-II, Delhi Circle.
Page 13 of 57File No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136590
30. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking copy of records in respect of case DAO-II/R-II/Fraud/4257 dated 11.01.2011 which proves that the appellant/complainant was given an opportunity by the disciplinary authority to put up his case before 'No Action' was decided by the disciplinary authority.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137603
31. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking copies of documents mentioning the reasons for delay in processing his request for additional loan dated 09.03.2012.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136633
32. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know the timeframe prescribed by SBI to dispose of a 'non- vigilance' enquiry against an awards staff.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136654
33. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi while referring DAO-I/R-II/Fraud/4257 dated 11.01.2011 seeking clarification in the matter against him where the disciplinary authority took a lenient view against him.
Page 14 of 57File No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136588
34. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking as to which authority and office of SBI is in possession of service file, leave record, enquiry report and charge sheet etc. pertaining to the appellant/complainant and since when.
File No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136589
35. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking a copy of the statement of the appellant/complainant which was given to the Investigating Officer pertaining to file no. DAO-I/R- II/Fraud/4257 dated 11.01.2011.
File No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136556
36. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know as to whether CVC guidelines were followed by SBI.
File No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136609
37. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking documentary evidences to show that the case against him was actually being looked into during February 2011 to September 2011.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137606
38. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer Page 15 of 57 (CPIO), State Bank of India Delhi Administrative Office-I, New Delhi seeking a statement of the 'charges account' of SBI Moti Bagh (Br Code: 01957) for the period between 16.12.2009 and 11.12.2010.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137608
39. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India Delhi Administrative Office-I, New Delhi seeking list of high-value transactions which were not explained by the applicant (in reply of employee provided as Annexure B to AGM (Admn) as part of the whole note) as claimed by SBI Moti Bagh Branch Manager at material time by Shri Suram Chand in point 4 under "Branch comments" column.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137610
40. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India Delhi Administrative Office-I, New Delhi seeking the name of the official who signed in column "signature of the Disciplinary Authority" on the note for the Disciplinary Authority (AGM/ADMN) dated 26.09.2011.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137602
41. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Moti Bagh, New Delhi seeking to know as to whether ensuring the correctness of content of charge sheet was the responsibility of the erstwhile Branch Manager Mr. Suram Chand, the erstwhile Regional Manager Mr. U.K. Sharma or the Investigating Officer in the case of Shri Bimal Kishore at Moti Bagh Branch (Ref. No. DAO-1/B- II/Fraud/4257 dated 11.01.2011.
Page 16 of 57File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137613
42. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Moti Bagh, New Delhi seeking to know 'on whose complaint a case against Shri Bimal Kishore was initiated (Ref. No. DAO-I/R-II/Fraud/4267 dated 11.01.2011) and sought necessary supporting document along with date.
File No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136612
43. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Moti Bagh, New Delhi seeking to know the name of the Investigating Officer for the case pertaining to Shri Bimal Kishore (Ref No. DAO-I/R-II/Fraud/4257 dated 11.01.2011.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137601
44. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Moti Bagh, New Delhi seeking information relating to high value transaction for staff in cash as well by transfer/cheque during 01.01.2008 to 31.12.2010 as per prescribed norms/guidelines of SBI and sought copies of guidelines in this regard.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137631
45. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Moti Bagh, New Delhi seeking to know 'why CVC guidelines on departmental enquiry was not followed in case of Shri Bimal Kishore (Ref No. DAO-I/R-II/Fraud/4257 dated 11.01.2011) by erstwhile Branch Manager Moti Bagh Mr. Suram Chand and erstwhile Regional Manager Shri Umesh Kumar Sharma"
Page 17 of 57File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/180705
46. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Moti Bagh, New Delhi seeking copy of security delivery book/log book showing omissions in physical receiving/returning of securities with respect to case as per letter No. DAO-I/R-II/Fraud/4257 dated 11.01.2011.
File No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136611
47. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Moti Bagh (Anand Niketan), New Delhi seeking documents pertaining to sanction/approval of Over Draft limit linked with the length of service of the appellant/complainant.
File No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136615
48. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Moti Bagh (Anand Niketan), New Delhi seeking to know the physical location (i.e. basement, ground floor or first floor) of the drawers from which security form nos. DD (166220, 168007, 173300, 175501, 239889 and 754989) and BC (347597 to 347600, 355832, 355866, 356223, 366622, 375013, 375515, 379257 to 379300, 406251 to 406260, 318458, 318472, 318481, 318482 and 319080) were recovered by the Branch Manager, Moti Bagh Mr. Suram Chand with respect to case no. DAO-I/R-II/Fraud/4257.
File No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136617
49. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Moti Bagh (Anand Niketan), New Delhi seeking documentary evidence stating that Ms. Pooja Negi was asked to report to Page 18 of 57 office by Branch Manager, Moti Bagh or a letter was served through authorized person to collect keys from her as per the prescribed norms of SBI.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137849
50. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Moti Bagh (Anand Niketan), New Delhi seeking the copy of agenda, minutes, reference number and relevant extracts including attendance and duration of meeting conducted by Shri U.K. Sharma erstwhile Regional Manager of controlling office of SBI, Moti Bagh(Branch Code 01967) on 13.08.2010.
File No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136614
51. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Moti Bagh (Anand Niketan), New Delhi seeking to know the transfer policy under which the appellant/complainant was transferred from Moti Bagh to Palam Colony Branch.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136600
52. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know who prepared the list of transactions of Shri Bimal Kishore i.e. applicant's account no. 1092589956 from 07.05.2007 to 16.08.2010.
File No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136568
53. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know whether the letter dated 18.02.2012 regarding payment of Page 19 of 57 arrears to award staff Shri Bimal Kishore was dispatched by Firozpur Jhirka Branch (Br. Code 01071) to Palam Colony (Br. Code 06563) and sought certified copy of the dispatch details.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137617
54. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking information relating to asset and liabilities details furnished by Shri Umesh Kumar Sharma, Shri Suram Chand, Ms. Jyoti Bhatia, Shri Birbal Prasad, Shri Prem Chand Bairwa and Shri Devinder Sandhu, for the last ten years as required by Rule of SBI as well as disclosure requirements of Government of India.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137611
55. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi stating that in response of RTI query no. SK/RTI/SBI/2016-17/54 SBI had stated vide letter No. AGM/MB/19 dated 25.05.2016 that there was no lunch time prescribed at SBI Moti Bagh at material time i.e. 13.08.2010 rather it was staggered and seeking to know the documentary evidence that the lunch time was staggered by consent of Regional Office or by an order of Branch Manager at material time i.e. 13.08.2010 by an order issued at material time or prior to it.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137598
56. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know the designation/position in SBI, Delhi Circle who is authorized to assign an award staff staggered duty at branch in case of morning branches.
Page 20 of 57File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137600
57. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know whether it was permissible as per banking guidelines of RBI and market regulator SEBI to transfer any kind i.e. saving bank/deposit/ advances accounts just before the close of financial year from one branch to another and then transfer back to the original branch thereby manipulating the whole book of account at the branch level.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136652
58. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know as to whether Form 16 for FY 2010-11 has been issued to Shri Bimal Kishore till date or not.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137629
59. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know whether there was a handover and takeover process prescribed by SBI for its branches in case an award staff is being relieved from duties from a branch due to transfer/leave and sought details of the process such as who will take over and need to be checked/verified as part of the standard process of takeover as prescribed by SBI manual/rule book.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136629
60. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi Page 21 of 57 seeking clarification as to why did the Palam Colony Branch Manager send letters by post/delivered in person after 11.01.2011.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137813
61. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking documentary evidence showing that Shri Bimal Kishore was looking after FDR/ Settlement of FDR job (DAO-II/R-7/COMP/4121 dated 18.12.2012) during 10.09.2012 to 18.12.2012 at SBI, Palam Colony Branch.
File No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136553
62. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know as to whether, after an employee is sanctioned an OD account/limit basis length of service of an employee, the same needs to be communicated to the salary disbursing authority by BM/RM/ZM/Network Head or CGM."
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137607
63. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking a copy of the physical receiving/referring of securities forms through security book, which has been quoted by the Branch/ Branch Manager Mr. Suram Chand in the note for the Disciplinary Authority (AGM/Admin) - DOA-I dated 26.09.2011.
File No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136551
64. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer Page 22 of 57 (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know whether 'it is the responsibility of salary disbursing authority/ Regional Manager/ Branch Manager to ensure the correctness of account in which salary is being credited, if an employee is holding multiple accounts as per policy and as approved by RBO.
File No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136549
65. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know the action taken on his application dated 26.05.2014 with respect to letter No. DZO-II/R-I/ADMIN/COMP/DIS 957.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137627
66. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking information pertaining to the current status of the following security forms (Bank drafts and bankers' cheque) Bank Draft No. MBC/CS/ 060542 to 060600, Bankers' cheque No. MBC/44 404327, BC 404757 and No. MBC/44 - 411394, 411763,414209, 414221, 389021, 389031, 401897, 402344, 402389, 403078, 403720 to 32.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137620
67. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking a certified copy of 'Letter of Authority' for the appellant/complainant (PF Index No. 45XXX78) for State Bank Award Staff Association deduction/subscription.
Page 23 of 57File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137621
68. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking a certified copy of the action taken report on letter nos. SL/179, SL/175 and SL/180 all dated 12.11.2013 sent by SBI, Palam Colony, New Delhi to Region-I, DAO-II, SBI, Delhi in the context of payments due to the appellant/complainant.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137626
69. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking the details of receipt and dispatch of the appellant/complainant's letter dated 26.05.2014 sent to the Chief General Manager/Chairman Secretariat.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137817
70. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking complete address of Ms. Ritika Dey/Rikta Dey.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136632
71. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know as to whether the controller i.e. RBO of Palam Colony Branch responded to any of the grievances/request from the appellant/complainant forwarded by Palam Colony Branch between September 2010 to May 2014 in writing other than 'NOC for passport'.
Page 24 of 57File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137840
72. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking detailed summary and certificate of total no. of transactions pertaining to the appellant/complainant's savings account no. 10XXXXXXX56.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137810
73. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking the total no. of Charges Clerk allowed in a Scale-3 Branch and under what authority Mr. Vijay Pal was paying the bills for Mr. Birbal Prasad, Branch Manager, Palam Colony in spite of the fact that Mr. A.K. Gupta was Charges Clerk between August 2010 and December 2013.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137852
74. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know as to whether 'Award Staff Office Bearers' are exempted from eight hours daily duty, if yes, the copy of relevant rule/agreement/policy and if no, the details of officials who are responsible to keep track of their work.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137595
75. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking the time frame for disposing off the representations filed with the appropriate authority relating to payment of salary/arrears/pending Page 25 of 57 allowances for award staff as per SBI rule book/ hand book/ circular/office order/memo.
File No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136582
76. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking a certified copy of redressal of grievance application dated 08.09.2010 submitted by the appellant/complainant which was forwarded by the Branch Manager, SBI Palam Colony to RBO vide letter no. SL/88 dated 09.09.2010 and to Moti Bagh Branch vide letter no. BRM/2010- 2011/95 dated 09.09.2010.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137826
77. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know the total count of Deposit Accounts such as, STDR, TDR, MODS, RD, etc., along with its total value at Palam Colony and Palam Dabri branches of the Bank on 01.03.2011, 15.03.2011, 31.03.2011, 05.04.2011, 15.04.2011 and 30.04.2011.
File No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136610
78. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know the total no. of employees including, award, supervising, subordinate, contractual and canteen boys at SBI Palam Colony Branch on 12.08.2010, 16.08.2010, 10.01.2011, 17.01.2011 and 31.01.2011.
Page 26 of 57File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137827
79. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking information as to whether SBI Palam Colony Branch and SBI Firozpur Jhirka Branch were under the same "Centre" as per the organizational structure of SBI as on 11th January 2011.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137818
80. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking clarification with respect to the word "his" used in the sentence "they had wasted his morning" in para 1 sub-para 2 of DAO-II/R- 7/COMP/4121, dated 18th December 2012.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136649
81. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know whether the CPIO, SBI Region-I, DAO-II, Delhi Circle or the deemed CPIO, SBI Region-I, Delhi Circle is responsible/accountable for each of the response to his 31 applications (as mentioned by the appellant/ complainant in the RTI application) submitted to the CPIO, SBI Region-I, DAO-II, Delhi Circle.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136644
82. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know the designation of the person in the SBI Delhi Circle Branch who is the custodian of SBI Rule Book/ Manual(s)/ Hand Book(s)/ Page 27 of 57 Circular/ Office Order/ Memos or any other document consolidated in 1999, 2007 and 2012 pertaining to Award Staff of the Bank.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137596
83. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking the statement of 'charges account' of SBI Palam Colony for the period 01st January 2010 to 31st December 2012.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136623
84. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know whether a Clerk or a Service Manager is responsible for handling of deceased customer cases.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136653
85. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know that, if in case, BC/BD/STDR/TDR is issued to the customer but it is not collected by the customer and has not been returned to the authorized officer, i.e. the supervising staff by the dealing clerk, i.e., the award staff, whether an enquiry would be initiated by the Bank against such clerk or would he be given an oral or written warning through office order/memo.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136628
86. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi Page 28 of 57 seeking to know whether the bank responded to each and every written request of an employee within the stipulated time frame.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136606
87. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know whether, as per the policy/procedure of the Bank's Rule Book/ Manual/ Hand Book/ Circular/ Office Order/ Memo or any other document, while calculating the officiating allowance for award staff, the holidays are included or excluded from the total number of days for which payment is to be made.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136603
88. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know whether an "Assistant" can be paid overtime allowance more than a "Senior Assistant" or a "Special Senior Assistant" for a day's work as per the SBI's Rule Book/ Manual and bipartite agreement in force during January 2011 and December 2013.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137618
89. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking a copy of the attendance register and officiating payment register of SBI Palam Colony between 1st August 2010 to 31st December 2013 or an opportunity for inspection of the relevant documents.
Page 29 of 57File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136625
90. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know the reasons for not having paid allowances pertaining to year 2007, despite his repeated written requests to the Branch and RBO.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136564
91. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know whether the Bank is in possession of his application dated 12th November 2013 regarding payment of difference of his officiating allowance from November 2007 to May 2010, if yes, the action taken on his said letter along with documentary evidence.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136565
92. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know whether all the eligible award staff of SBI, Jhirka Branch, Firozpur were paid officiating allowance from June 2011 to November 2011 as per entitlement every month or after November 2011 as arrears, if yes, the reasons for non-payment of the allowance to the appellant/complainant for the said period.
File No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136584
93. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know the time frame prescribed in HR Handbook/Manual for Page 30 of 57 award staff for regularizing 53 days of extraordinary leave of the appellant/complainant.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137825
94. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know the difference between 'Sanction' and 'Regularization' of extraordinary leaves for award staff as per HR Handbook of SBI/any other guideline/policies of SBI.
File No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136586
95. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know the designation of the official who is authorized for regularizing 53 days of extraordinary leave of the appellant/complainant as per HR Handbook/manual for award staff consolidated in the year 1999. File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136547
96. The appellant/ appellant/ filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking a copy of the action taken on his repeated written request of regularization of extraordinary leave.
File No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136560
97. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know as to whether the Regional Office is in possession of appellant/complainant's application for regularization of extraordinary leave dated 01.02.2010, applications for non-payment of officiating allowances Page 31 of 57 dated 10.05.2010 and 01.10.2012 and application for promotion to Senior Assistant dated 03.04.2012 and 23.11.2012.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137841
98. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Premises & Estate Department, Local Head Office, New Delhi seeking to know as to whether the State Bank Staff Association is paying any rent for utilizing space at 11, Parliament Street Complex, if yes, the details of the amount collected from Financial Year 2000-01 to 2015-16 and if not, the documentary evidence regarding such exemption from rent.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137850
99. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Premises & Estate Department, Local Head Office, New Delhi seeking copies of documents and file noting for allotment of cabin/office/chambers of SBI Award Staff Association bearers at Parliament Street Complex such as DGS (Mr. Sunil Arora) and others for last 3 financial years.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137847+137845
100. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Premises & Estate Department, Local Head Office, New Delhi seeking to know as to whether his application dated 26.05.2014 which was also sent through fax on 07.06.2014 is in the possession of the CGM/CGM Office/ CGM Secretariat of SBI, Delhi Circle. File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137844
101. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer Page 32 of 57 (CPIO), State Bank of India, Premises & Estate Department, Local Head Office, New Delhi seeking the total no. of award staff in Delhi Circle of SBI who were transferred on administrative grounds between 01.07.2010 and 31.12.2011 as per para 16.1.1 of point no. (x) of HR Handbook.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137843
102. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Premises & Estate Department, Local Head Office, New Delhi seeking total no. of award staff in Delhi Circle of SBI who were transferred three times between 01.07.2010 and 31.12.2011 under any of the policies prescribed by SBI rule-book/manual/hand- book/circular/office order/memos.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136642
103. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Region-II, Gurgaon, seeking the list of all "Assistants" in Region-II, DAO-I, Network-I, SBI, Delhi Circle on 11th January 2011 who had completed ten years of service in the Bank and had been at their place of posting/deployment for more than five years.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136640
104. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Region-II, Gurgaon, seeking the list of all "Assistants" in Region-II, DAO-I, Network-I, SBI, Delhi Circle on 11th January 2011 who had completed ten years of service in the Bank and had been at their place of posting/deployment for more than two years.
Page 33 of 57File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137597
105. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know the process by which the Bank made sure that the transfer of its employee on "administrative grounds" is not misused by the transferring authority for personal reasons/vendetta against the employee along with the documentary evidence.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137836
106. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know the criteria followed by the competent authority for transfer of an employee from one Branch to another on administrative grounds.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137838
107. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know the authority/officer [AGM, DGM, GM (Network-I), CGM, DMD, MD or Chairman] that authorized his transfer from SBI Palam Colony Branch to SBI Jhirka Branch, Ferozpur, by transfer order dated 11th January 2011.
File No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136604
108. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking the letter number and the date of statements sent to the HR Department at LHO in respect of the transfers/redeployments for award Page 34 of 57 staff for all the quarters starting FY 2010-11 to FY 2013-14 along with the number of transfers reported in each of the letter.
File No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136601
109. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know as to whether the award staff transferred out of centre by the Bank is entitled to truck fare to carry his/her luggage to new place of posting. If yes, the reasons for not paying the appellant/complainant the fare at the time of his transfer from SBI Jhirka Branch, Ferozpur to SBI Palam Colony Branch.
File No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136583
110. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking the details of transfer policy as prescribed by SBI under which the complainant was transferred from SBI Jhirka Branch, Ferozpur to SBI Palam Colony Branch.
File No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136591
111. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know as to whether the process of redeployment "outside centre"
mentioned in the Chapter on "Transfer Policy & Redeployment Policy" for award staff was followed in the case of the complainant's transfer.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136592/C
112. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi Page 35 of 57 seeking the copy of authorization sent by DGM/ DGM office to erstwhile Regional Office/ Regional Manager, Gurgaon for transfer of the complainant from SBI Palam Colony Branch to SBI Jhirka Branch, Ferozpur as on 11th January 2011.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136648
113. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi stating that the applicant was transferred on 11.1.2011 vide letter No. BRM/2010/114 dated 11.01.2011 from Palam Colony to Firozpur Jhirka i.e. outside the center; and sought clarification as to whether the exception condition as described in point no. 16.2.2 under Chapter on "Transfer Policy & Redeployment Policy" of HR Handbook/Manual for award staff was applicable to him or not.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136558
114. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know as to whether an award staff can be transferred on administrative grounds/ exigency more than one time within a year as per policy as SBI as prescribed by SBI Rule Book/ Manual(s)/ Handbook(s)/ Circular/ Office Order/Memos or any other document.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136635
115. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking `to know whether a male award staff of SBI of 57 years of age can be transferred outside a 'Centre' on administrative grounds/exigency as per "Transfer & Redeployment Policy of Award Staff" as documented in HR Handbook volume as applicable to respective cadre.
Page 36 of 57File No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136599
116. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking the letter number, date of letter/correspondence sent by erstwhile controller of SBI Palam Colony Branch at material time i.e. between 05.01.2011 and 11.01.2011 advising SBI, Palam Colony to relieve and transfer Shri Bimal Kishore i.e. applicant to Firozpur Jhirka Branch and the basis on which the transfer order No. BRM/2010-2011/114 dated 11.01.2011 was issued.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137830
117. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking a copy of the internal note/transfer order sent by Regional Office i.e. controller of Palam Colony Branch as well as the basis on which Shri Bimal Kishore was transferred from SBI, Palam Colony to SBI, Firozpur Jhirka at the material time i.e. 11.01.2011.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137831
118. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi stating that as per HR Handbook Manual (Part-2) Chapter on "Transfer Policy & Redeployment Policy" on page no.303, point no. 16.2, sub point no. (v) a male above 55 years cannot be transferred outside center and sought copy of internal note/instruction/order to transfer/ redeploy Shri Bimal Kishore from outside center to Firozpur Jhirka which is in violation of rule/policy available in HR Manuals as well as bipartite agreement thereby making the transfer illegal and concerned officials act as punishable for personal vendetta and malafide intentions.
Page 37 of 57File No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136571
119. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking a copy of the letter on which receiving was provided by Shri Bimal Kishore for letter No. DAO-I/R-II/Fraud/4257 dated 11.01.2011 at Firozpur Jhirka Branch to the then Branch Manager Mr. P.C. Bairwa in presence of his son and his friends who are witness on day of joining as the same was not provided to him on the instructions of the then RM, Shri U.K. Sharma as stated by Branch Manager, Firozpur Jhirka.
File No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136574
120. The appellant/ appellant/ filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking a certified copy of the internal note put up to Regional Manager i.e. controller of Palam Colony Branch where Shri Bimal Kishore was posted at material time (i.e. 11.01.2011) for transferring him to SBI Firozpur Jhirka Branch from SBI Palam Colony Branch.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137828
121. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi stating that as per HR Handbook Manual (Part-2) Chapter on "Transfer Policy & Redeployment Policy" on page no.303, point no. 16.2, sub point no. (iv) a branch and centre wise list is prepared which is used for transferring the award staff and the same is duly verified as well and sought a copy of the list prepared as on 01.06.2010 which would have been used for the transfer of Shri Bimal Kishore highlighting the position of Shri Bimal Kishore in the list.
Page 38 of 57File No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136572
122. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking a certified copy of the promotion exercise sheet/extract done for promoting award staff from Assistant to Senior Assistant by RBO/DZO/LHO Delhi Circle at material time i.e. June 2010 and 20.06.2011 highlighting Shri Bimal Kishore's name only along with details.
File No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136558
123. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know the date on which Shri Bimal Kishore's promotion due on completion of 10 years of service was withheld as per guidelines of CVC and also quote the internal letter number for the same.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136620
124. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking `to know whether a promotion is withheld due to a pending enquiry against an employee.
File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136621
125. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know as to whether an employee can be penalized by delay in promotion on the pretext of an enquiry, the outcome of which is 'No Action' against employee.
Page 39 of 57File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136627
126. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know why his promotion was not released on completion of 10 years of service.
File No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136608
127. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking a copy of the letter as per "Debarment Policy" of HR Handbook for award staff through which Shri Bimal Kishore was informed that he is 'debarred' from promotion exercise for 'Senior Assistant' to be carried out in June 2011 for retrospective promotion with effect from June 2010 as per policy described/mentioned in Chapter on 'Debarment Policy' in HR Handbook for award staff.
File No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136557
128. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, New Delhi seeking to know as to whether a penalty was imposed on Shri Bimal Kishore because of which his promotion was released w.e.f. 01.06.2012 instead of 01.06.2010.
129. The appellant/complainant filed 128 second appeals/complaints before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO has deliberately not provided the information sought by him on the pretext of Section 8 of the RTI Act when he has sought his own information. The appellant/complainant further contended that information of its own employee should have been readily available with the Bank. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought, to Page 40 of 57 impose a penalty upon the CPIO and the FAA and to take necessary action against the erring officials for denying the information sought by him. In addition to the above, the appellant/complainant also requested for award of compensation to him in lieu of the harassment faced by him at the hands of the respondent.
HEARING:
130. Both, the appellant/complainant Shri Bimal Kishore and his son, Shri Vishal Kishore and the respondent Shri Ranjan Kumar Singh, CPIO & AGM, State Bank of India, Region-I, NBCC Place, II Floor, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, Shri Mulendra Kumar Sharma, AGM, Premises & Estate Deptt., Local Head Office, Sansad Marg, New Delhi and Shri A.N. Gupta, Chief Manager were present in person.
131. The appellant/complainant submitted that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by the Bank on frivolous charges while no opportunity of hearing was given to him during the proceedings. Subsequently, the appellant/complainant was 'penalized' and his promotion was delayed by two years. In fact, the appellant/complainant approached the Bank authorities, from time to time for redressal of his grievances but, all his pleas had fallen on deaf ears and no corrective action was taken by the Bank. Therefore, he had to file numerous RTI applications seeking inter- alia, documentary evidence pertaining to his transfer(s) and the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him. However, incorrect and incomplete information has been provided to him by the CPIO in response to the above said RTI applications. The appellant/complainant, however, admitted that many of the RTI applications filed by him could have been avoided.
132. The respondent stated that the appellant/complainant is an ex- employee of the Bank who retired from the Bank's service on 31.05.2014. Further, the Bank had initiated disciplinary proceedings against him while he was posted at Moti Bagh Branch. The promotion of the appellant/complainant was withheld during departmental proceedings pending against him. However, the Bank exonerated him and 'No Action' Page 41 of 57 was decided to be taken against the appellant/complainant on the basis of the inquiry concluded. Subsequently, the appellant/complainant was promoted w.e.f. October/November 2015 as and when it became due to him. The appellant/complainant, however, after his retirement filed about 130 RTI applications seeking numerous information relating to his promotion, disciplinary proceedings and procedures followed by the bank which were duly replied to by the CPIO within the stipulated time period. Interestingly, the appellant/complainant did not raise any issue regarding the Bank's decision affecting his promotion till October/November 2015. The respondent stated that in the above circumstances, the resources of the Bank are not being utilized for the public interest and the system is being misused with a motive to harass the Bank and create pressure. The respondent further submitted that due information as per the available records has been provided to the appellant/complainant. Further, most of the queries raised by him are hypothetical in nature which do not qualify as 'information' under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The respondent requested to dismiss all the appeals/complaints.
DECISION:
133. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the appellant/complainant has filed 128 RTI applications, many of which are frivolous and vexatious in nature since his grievance was not redressed by the respondent bank. The Commission, however, observes that instead of filing multiple RTI applications, the appellant/complainant should have approached the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance. The Commission also notes that the appellant/complainant has admitted that many of the RTI applications filed by him could have been avoided.
File nos.
CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136547 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136551 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136553 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136570 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136576 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136577 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136580 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136590 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136591 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136594 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136598 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136600 Page 42 of 57 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136609 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136620 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136621 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136623 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136625 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136627 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136628 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136629 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136630 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136631 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136638 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136644 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136648 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136649 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136653 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136654 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137597 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137598 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137600 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137602 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137617 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137629 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137631 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137632 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137810 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137812 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137818 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137821 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137825 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137841 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137843 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137844 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137845 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137847 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137850 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137852 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/180705
134. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the information sought by the appellant/complainant in the abovementioned matters is in the nature of hypothetical query/opinion/clarification. The Commission further observes that in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, the CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to solve problems raised by the appellant/complainant; or to furnish replies to situational queries; or to furnish clarifications. The CPIO only provides information available with or held by the public authority. Thus, the appellant/complainant cannot expect the respondent to take certain action or initiate action as desired by him. The Commission notes that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision in Central Board of Secondary Education and another vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, (2011) 8 SCC 497 has held that:
"35. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of Section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to information' under Clauses (f) and (j) of Section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information Page 43 of 57 in the form of data or analyzed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in Section 8 of the Act. But 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 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. It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in Section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority."
Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in these matters.
File nos.
CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136557 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136574 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136583 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136599 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136603 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136614 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136646 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137594 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137596 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137606 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137610 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137815 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137849
135. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, finds that an appropriate reply has been provided to the appellant/complainant by the respondent in the abovementioned cases. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in these matters.
Page 44 of 57File nos.
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136642 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136640
136. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the appellant/complainant had sought the list of all "Assistants" in Region-II, DAO-I, Network-I, SBI, Delhi Circle on 11th January 2011 who had completed ten years of service in the Bank and had been at their place of posting/deployment for more than five years. The Commission agrees with the submissions of the respondent that information sought by the appellant/complainant in respect of the above said RTI applications is not compiled/maintained in the form requested by the appellant/complainant. Moreover, the information sought is voluminous in nature, collating and compiling of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the respondent organization. Hence, the disclosure of the information is exempted as per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of The Registrar Supreme Court of India v. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra & Ors LPA 24/2015 & CM No. 965/2015 has held:-
"15. On a combined reading of Section 4(1)(a) and Section 2(i), it appears to us that the requirement is only to maintain the records in a manner which facilitates the right to information under the Act. As already noticed above, 'right to information' under Section 2(j) means only the right to information which is held by any public authority. We do not find any other provision under the Act under which a direction can be issued to the public authority to collate the information in the manner in which is sought by the applicant."
In view of the above, the respondent cannot be asked to collate information in the manner in which it is sought by the appellant/complainant. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the abovementioned matters.
Page 45 of 57File No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136582
137. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the appellant/complainant is seeking a certified copy of his own "grievance application" dated 08th September 2010 forwarded by the Branch Manager, SBI Palam Colony on 09th September 2010 to RBO and to Moti Bagh Branch, which he is not entitled to seek as a matter of right under the RTI Act. Moreover, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of High Court, Madras v. Central Information Commission, Writ Petition No. 26781/2013 dated 17.09.2014 has held as follows:-
".......we fail to understand as to how the second respondent is entitled to justify his claim for seeking the copies of his complaints and appeals. It is needless to say that they are not the information available within the knowledge of the petitioner; on the other hand, admittedly, they are the documents of the second respondent himself, and therefore, if he does not have copies of the same, he has to blame himself and he cannot seek those details as a matter of right ............. Further, those documents cannot be brought under the definition "information" as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act."
In view of the above ratio, information sought cannot be provided to the appellant/complainant. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
File nos.
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137595 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136633 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137607 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137611 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137615 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137623 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137627 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137813 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137814 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137816 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137819 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137820 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137824 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137826 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137827 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137830 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137831 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137838 Page 46 of 57
138. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that complete and correct information has not been provided to the appellant/complainant. In view of this, the Commission directs the respondent to provide information, as per the available records, in respect of the above said RTI applications to the appellant/complainant within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
File nos.
CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136617 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136615 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136564
139. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the appellant/complainant submitted that the application dated 12.11.2013 presented by Shri Bimal Kishore and the Letter no. DAO-1/R-II/Fraud/4257 dated 11.01.2011 is available with the Bank. The respondent, however, reiterated that despite their best efforts were not able to trace the above-said letter. Hence, the appellant/complainant was requested to provide a copy of the same so as to enable the CPIO to provide response to his RTI application. Moreover, the application dated 12.11.2013 is not traceable/available with the Bank. The Commission notes that record keeping and proper maintenance of files is a key function of any public authority. In view of this, it is imperative to ascertain the facts leading to the misplacement of the records relating to the letter no. DAO-1/R-II/Fraud/4257 dated 11.01.2011 and the application dated 12.11.2013 filed by the appellant/complainant. The Commission, therefore, directs the First Appellate Authority, State Bank of India, GM (NW-I), 10th Floor, Local Head Office, 11, Sansad Marg, New Delhi- 110001, to inquire into the matter of the 'missing' letter and the application and to ascertain as to whether the records were actually misplaced or the CPIO had taken that plea to deny information to the appellant/complainant. The FAA shall also, if required, take appropriate departmental action against the officers/officials responsible for the misplacement of the records. A copy of the inquiry report along with the action taken report may be provided to the Page 47 of 57 Commission as well as to the appellant/complainant within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
File nos.
CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136549 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136635 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136637 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136652 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137613 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137621 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137828
140. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the respondent during the hearing could not confirm as to whether the replies/information given in respect of the above said RTI applications were correct or not. In view of this, the Commission directs the respondent to go through the relevant records and file an affidavit with the Commission deposing that the replies/information furnished to the appellant/complainant in respect of the above said RTI applications is correct and complete as per the available records. Hence, no information can be provided to the appellant/complainant. A copy of the affidavit shall also be provided to the appellant/complainant. The above directions of the Commission shall be complied with, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
File no. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137620
141. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the CPIO vide letter dated 16.09.2016 informed the appellant/complainant that the information sought might be available with the Branch where the appellant/complainant got confirmed (i.e. probably Didihat Branch, Uttarakhand). The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO to transfer the RTI application to the CPIO concerned under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the appellant/complainant.
Page 48 of 57File no. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137618
142. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the appellant/complainant has sought copy of attendance register of Palam Colony Branch (Br Code:06563) from 01.08.2010 to 31.12.2013. However, the CPIO incorrectly denied the information sought i.e. attendance register under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as attendance record of a public servant conveys information regarding his/her availability for duty and hence, relates to public activity. In view of this, the information sought is disclosable under the RTI Act. The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent to provide the copy of attendance register from 01.08.2010 to 31.12.2013, after severing that part of information which would result in disclosure of reasons/purpose of leave which is a third party personal information and hence, is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
File no. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137626
143. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the CPIO vide letter dated 16.09.2016 informed the appellant/complainant that the Palam Colony Branch was instructed to provide the information sought to the appellant/complainant. However, the appellant/complainant has received no information so far. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO to obtain information from the concerned Branch and furnish it to the appellant/complainant within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
File no. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137817
144. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the appellant/complainant sought complete address of Ms. Ritika Dey/Rikta Dey, which is personal information of the third party. However, no notice under Section 11(1) of the Page 49 of 57 RTI Act was served on the third party concerned. In view of this, the Commission directs the respondent to follow the procedure for supplying the third party information as laid down under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act by seeking the opinion of the third party concerned and thereafter take a decision regarding disclosure of information. The above directions shall be complied with, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
File no. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136632
145. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the appellant/complainant has sought to know as to whether the controller i.e. RBO of Palam Colony Branch responded to any of the grievance/request from the appellant/complainant forwarded by Palam Colony Branch between September 2010 to May 2014 in writing other than 'NOC for passport'. However, he has not specified the letter nos. and dates of his requests. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO to provide information sought to the appellant/complainant within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the letter from the appellant/complainant specifying the letter nos. and dates of his requests.
File no. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137601
146. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the appellant/complainant has sought information relating to high value transaction for staff in cash as well by transfer/cheque during 01.01.2008 to 31.12.2010 as per prescribed norms/guidelines of SBI and sought copies of guidelines in this regard. The CPIO vide letter dated 26.02.2016 while furnishing certain information requested the appellant/complainant to specify the type/category of staff pertaining to which he wants the information. The appellant/complainant stated that vide letter dated 28.03.2016 he specified the details to the CPIO, however, no information has been provided to him afterward. The CPIO stated that he has no knowledge as to whether the said letter dated Page 50 of 57 28.03.2016 was received in their office. The appellant/complainant stated that he will again send the letter dated 28.03.2016 to the CPIO. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO to provide information sought to the appellant/complainant within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the letter dated 28.03.2016 from the appellant/complainant.
File no. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137840
147. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the appellant/complainant has sought detailed summary and certificate of total no. of transactions pertaining to the appellant/complainant's savings account no. 10XXXXXXX56. The respondent stated that in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, the CPIO is not supposed to create information. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO to provide a certified copy of the statement of appellant/complainant's savings account no. 10XXXXXXX56 to him within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
File no. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137608
148. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the appellant/complainant has sought a list of high value transactions which were not explained by the appellant/complainant (in reply of employee provided as Annexure B to AGM (Admn) as part of the whole note) as claimed by SBI, Moti Bagh Branch Manager, Shri Suram Chand. However, the CPIO incorrectly denied the information sought under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO to provide a copy of the relevant note as mentioned in the RTI application, to the appellant/complainant within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
File no. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136622
149. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the appellant/complainant has Page 51 of 57 sought a copy of the enquiry report and the action taken report along with the testimony, if any, in respect of case/enquiry DAO-I/R-II/Fraud/4257 dated 11th January 2011, against him. However, the respondent has denied the information sought in totality on the grounds that the information sought is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(e) and (g) of the RTI Act. The Commission observes that it cannot be said that the entire enquiry report and the action taken report along with the testimony would contain information the disclosure of which would endanger the life and physical safety of any person. In view of this, the Commission directs the respondent to provide certified copies of the enquiry report and the action taken report along with the testimony, after severing the names and other particulars of third parties, the disclosure of which would endanger their life and physical safety, as per provisions of the RTI Act, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
File no. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137836
150. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the appellant/complainant has sought to know the criteria/points followed by the competent authority for transfer of an employee from one Branch to another on administrative grounds. The CPIO informed the appellant/complainant that no conclusive list of points was available. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO to provide a copy of the transfer policy for transfer of an employee from one Branch to another, to the appellant/complainant within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
File no. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137592
151. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the appellant/complainant has sought total no. of Assistants promoted to Senior Assistants as per the form/performa jointly held and signed by Chief Manager (HR) DAO-I and DAO-II pertaining to Carrier Progression Scheme for June 2012 along with the comments written in the remarks column against the Page 52 of 57 appellant/complainant's name. The appellant/complainant stated that the comments written in the remarks column against the appellant/complainant's name has not been provided to him so far. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO to provide a copy of the comments written in the remarks column against the appellant/complainant's name pertaining to Career Progression Scheme for June 2012 to him within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
File no. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137603
152. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the appellant/complainant has sought a copy of the documents mentioning the reasons for the delay in processing his request for additional loan dated 09.03.2012. The CPIO informed the appellant/complainant that they do not have any record indicating any undue delay in sanction of additional loan under 'Home Plus'. The appellant/complainant is not satisfied with the reply and stated that to the best of his knowledge the reasons for delay must have been recorded in the file. The Commission directs the CPIO to allow the appellant/complainant to inspect the relevant records pertaining to the information sought in his RTI application on a mutually decided date and time as per the provisions of the RTI Act and to obtain photocopies of the requisite documents, free of charge. The above directions shall be complied with, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
File no. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137823
153. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the appellant/complainant while referring to para 1 sub para 2 and question 3 of the annexure of DAO-II/R- 7/COMP/4121, dated 18th December 2012 has sought the name of the person who rephrased the sentence and added the word "unpleasant". However, the respondent has denied the information sought on the grounds that it is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. The Page 53 of 57 appellant/complainant is not satisfied with the reply as he doubted that the said document was tampered. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO to allow the appellant/complainant to inspect the relevant document as mentioned above, after severing/blocking/masking the names and other particulars of the persons, the disclosure of which would endanger the life and physical safety, as per provisions of the RTI Act, on a mutually decided date and time as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The above directions shall be complied with, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
File nos.
CIC/SBIND/A/2017/137595 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/136592/C CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136556 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136558 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136560 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136561 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136565 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136568 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136571 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136572 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136584 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136586 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136587 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136588 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136589 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136601 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136604 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136606 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136608 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136610 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136611 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136612 CIC/SBIND/C/2017/136613
154. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that no satisfactory reply in response to the above said RTI applications was given to the appellant/complainant and no justification/explanation was offered by the respondent during the hearing for providing incorrect/incomplete/vague information to the appellant/complainant. The Commission, thus, finds that information has not been provided by the respondent to the complainant. The Commission, therefore, directs the Registry of this Bench to issue a Show Cause Notice to the then CPIO, State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, Sansad Marg, New Delhi for explaining as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against him.
Page 54 of 57155. The Commission notes that the appellant/complainant has filed 128 second appeals/complaints before the Commission. The Commission also observes that the appellant/complainant has sought information not for the furtherance of any public interest or to bring about any transparency. It seems to the Commission that the petitioner held a personal grudge against some of the officials regarding his delayed promotion while in service. The Commission observes that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision in Central Board of Secondary Education and another vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors., (2011) 8 SCC497 has held that:
"37. Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
156. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its decision dated 05/02/2014 [W.P.(C) 845/2014 - Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar & others] had observed as under:
Page 55 of 57"This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law."
157. The Commission observes that the information sought in most of the RTI applications falls squarely under the category of "indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information which is unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption". In the light of the objective of the RTI Act which is to strike balance between the right of a citizen to seek transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority and the efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information, the Commission counsels the appellant/complainant to use the cherished right wisely and not to file frivolous and vexatious RTI applications which impinge on the scarce resources of the public authority.
158. With the above observations, all the appeals/complaints are disposed of.
159. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (S.S. Rohilla) Designated Officer Page 56 of 57 Addresses of the parties:
1. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Region-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II, 3rd Floor, DZO Building, 11, Sansad Marg, New Delhi- 110001
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Delhi Administrative Office-1, Region-3, A-Block, 4th Floor, 11 Sansad Marg, New Delhi -110001
3. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Moti Bagh, (Anand Niketan), New Delhi - 110021
4. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Premises & Estate Deptt., Local Head Office, 5th Floor, 11, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110001
5. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Region-II, GNG Tower, Plot No. 10, Sector-44, Gurgaon -122002
6. Shri Bimal Kishore, Page 57 of 57