Debasis Goswami vs Bank Of Baroda on 1 June, 2022

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Debasis Goswami vs Bank Of Baroda on 1 June, 2022

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 21.02.2020 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through the RTI application dated 23.08.2019 and first appeal dated 26.10.2019:-

(i) The appellant requested for the following information:

(a) Authenticated copy of all related circulars, executed in the context of "celebration of the foundation day" i.e. 20.07.2019.

(b) Authenticated copy of all related circulars, showing total assessment of fund, parameter of expenditure, under jurisdiction of this zonal office.

(c) Authenticated copy of exact distribution chart showing disburse of fund amount at the branch, region, zonal label.

Page 1 of 5

(d) Authenticated copy of utilization certificate of entire fund, irrespective of label.

(e) Authenticated of the monitoring policy, at the branch, region, and zonal label and detail of such policy, i.e. constituted for introspection of fund amount & prevent any misuse of fund.

(f) CCTV footages of all cameras, duly installed at Burdwan Branch code 0906, dated 20.07.2019.

(ii) The appellant also want following information:

(a) What privilege has been arranged for Grade A, Grade B, Grade C, officials, Grade D and P&T Staff, On the eve of celebration of foundation day?

(b) Whether such privilege means valuable gifts, T shirts, wrist watches and redeem of vouchers of the costlier hotel/restaurant?

(c) What privilege has been arranged for valued consumers?

(d) Whether it is limited to one cup coffee and one piece biscuit?

(e) What will be your perception when some Kartick, P&T staff, belongs to branch code 0906, found distributing coffee and biscuit to some selectively selected consumer as per oral instruction of some Bireshwar Ganguly, Banking Assistant?

(f) Why stated Act and omission of said Kartick and Bireshwar will not be considered as acute violation of professional ethics, standard banking codes?

(g) Why BOB not refrained hereafter from celebrating foundation day when they cannot afford merely one cup coffee, one piece biscuit for each and every consumer?

(h) Whether BOB is dedicated itself to its staff/official, irrespective of label?

(i) What is the real problems of treating valued consumers in dignify, qualified and irrespective manner?

Page 2 of 5

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 23.08.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of Baroda, Salt Lake City, Kolkata, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 26.09.2019 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 26.10.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 26.11.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 21.02.2020 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 21.02.2020 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 26.09.2019 and the same is reproduced as under:-

(i) "As the Foundation Day of the Bank is being celebrated on 20th July every year with all gaiety and enthusiasm with the objective of bringing a sense of belongingness amongst the staff members and for the projection of the Banks image in the public. This day is of great historic significance and immense pride to the staff members of the bank. Celebrations are occasion which can bring in a positive impact on enhancing the bank employee engagement level and there by employee productivity. In view of the above, we are of the view that Bank internal circular are exempted u/s 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act; as it include commercial confidence and the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, further we are not satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information.

(ii) You have sought hypothetical question, which is not covered u/s 2 (e) of the Act, accordingly note that only information which is available in material form can be provided subject to exemption u/s 8 of the RTI Act."

The FAA vide order dated 26.11.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO.

Page 3 of 5

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Deepak, Chief Manager (Law), Bank of Baroda, Kolkata attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had deliberately denied the information as they did not want to disclose the details of funds used for their celebration and annual retreat. He further contended that the bank used public money for those events and functions, therefore, they were under an obligation to disclose details of expenses, CCTV footage, copies of circulars, all policies related to their annual day celebration.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the circulars referred to by the appellant were internal in nature. They further argued that the retreat conducted by the bank for boosting the employees and it was exclusive to their bank as to how they provided incentives to their employees. Therefore, the information was exempted under section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act. The respondent further relied upon the CIC decision dated 13.12.2016 in T.C. Bhandari vs. State Bank of India [CIC/MP/A/2016/001648] wherein the Commission had upheld the CPIO's decision not to part with the loan manuals of the bank under the provisions of section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that due reply was given by the respondent on 26.09.2019. The appellant had raised allegations against the bank for misutilization of public funds but could not substantiate his allegations with any evidence. The public authorities may not be burdened with exercise to compile all information of their functions and operations in the exact manner as sought by the appellant. However, in the interest of transparency which is also prescribed under section 4 (1) (b) (xi), the respondent must encourage the disclosure of total funds allocated/dusbursed for each of its events in public domain. The provision under section 4 (1) (b) (xi) is extracted as under:

"4. (1) Every public authority shall-

......

Page 4 of 5

(b) publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act-

...

(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made."

In view of the above, the respondent is directed that the total amount/fund sanctioned for the annual day celebration of the bank may be informed to the appellant as well as be placed in public domain within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Further, there appears to be no infirmity in respect of the reply given in remaining points and the disclosure of the CCTV footage that includes the physical movement of customers would have caused invasion of their privacy. With these observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-


                                                                            सुरेश चं ा)
                                                         (Suresh Chandra) (सु        ा
                                                                         सूचना आयु )
                                              Information Commissioner (सू
                                                               दनांक/Date: 30.05.2022
Authenticated true copy

R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)


Addresses of the parties:
CPIO: BANK OF BARODA,
BARODA TOWER, 5TH FLOOR,
PLOT NO 38/2, GN BLOCK, SECTOR - V,
SALT LAKE CITY, KOLKATA-700091

FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY
BANK OF BARODA, BARODA TOWER,
5TH FLOOR, PLOT NO 38/2, GN BLOCK,
SECTOR - V, SALT LAKE CITY,
KOLKATA-700091

SHRI DEBASIS GOSWAMI

                                                                                 Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission