Gautam Prakash vs Allahabad Bank on 4 December, 2020

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Gautam Prakash vs Allahabad Bank on 4 December, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 03.10.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 30.04.2018 and first appeal dated 01.06.2018:-

i. Information may be provided that why the monthly allowance (Conveyance Allowance, Entertainment Allowance, Mobile Allowance, News Paper Allowance etc.) has not given to the applicant for the month of November 2016.

Page 1 of 5

ii. Information may be provided that why the monthly allowance (Conveyance Allowance, Entertainment Allowance, Mobile Allowance, News Paper Allowance etc.) has not given to the applicant for the month of August 2017. iii. Information may be provided for the reason that why the salary of 28.02.2017 was deducted from the monthly salary of the applicant even after he was not a member of any bank union till date and he joined the office on the day as a normal working day, and this has been duly endorsed and forwarded by the branch manager to the zonal office.

iv. Information may be provided that why the special sitting allowance was not given to the applicant while he was working on a higher capability (capability 5 to capability 7) as a requirement to run the routine functions of the branch as on Branch Manager's request dated 29.05.2017 to the zonal office from 29.05.2017 to till his relieving from the Allahabad Bank's services. v. Information may be provided that what action has been taken on the letters of the applicant dated 29.04.2017, 03.07.2017, 04.08.2017 and 05.09.2017. Certified copies of proceedings on the note sheet may be provided. vi. Applicant has requested for Technical Resignation in his resignation dated 24.08.2017 why the technical resignation was not accepted, information may be provided.

vii. Copy of note sheet as information may be provided that what action was taken on his application of Technical Resignation dated 24.07.2017. viii. Information may be provided that why the applicant was asked for another normal resignation even after he had already submitted his request for Technical Resignation on dated 24.07.2017.

ix. Information may be provided that why the applicant was called to Allahabad Bank, Head Office, Kolkata on 08.11.2017 for document verification while he had Page 2 of 5 already got his documents verified successfully without any discrepancy at FGMO - New Delhi on 30.07.2017.

x. Information may be provided that why no TA and DA was provided to the applicant for second document verification on 08.11.2017 at Allahabad Bank, Head Office, Kolkata.

xi. Information may be provided that why Second Bond was taken from the applicant while he had already submitted a bond at FGMO, New Delhi. xii. Information may be provided that even after NPS subscription amount was deducted from applicnt's salary for the month of August, 2017 but why the same is not deposited in his NPS account.

xiii. Information may be provided that why the employer i.e. Allahabad Bank has not contributed towards NPS contribution of the applicant for the month of August, 2017.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 30.04.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Allahabad Bank (now Indian Bank), Hamirpur, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 04.05.2018. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 01.06.2018. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) disposed of first appeal vide its order dated 09.07.2018. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 03.10.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 03.10.2018 inter alia on the grounds that no satisfactory reply given by the CPIO and FAA against point nos. 1 to 13 of the RTI application. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 04.05.2018 denied the information on point Nos. 5 and 7 of the RTI application under clauses (e) & (j) of sub section (1) of section 8 of the Page 3 of 5 RTI Act. They further submitted that information sought on rest of the points did not fall within the definition of "information" as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. The FAA vide his order dated 09.07.2018 agreed with the views taken by the CPIO.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Ashok Pandey, Indian Bank, Chennai attended the hearing through audio conference.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that information sought on point nos. 5 and 7 of the RTI related to third party, held by the bank in fiduciary capacity and disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest, hence, the same was denied under section 8 (1) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act. They further submitted that information sought on point nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 8 to 13 was in the form of seeking opinion/reasons/ clarification which did not fall within the definition of "information" as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the respondent had furnished point-wise reply to the RTI application vide 04.05.2018. It is noted that query raised on most of the points was in the form of seeking clarification/opinion/reasons which are not covered under the definition of 'information' given under section 2 (f) of RTI Act. In view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education &Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011] date of judgment 09.08.2011 wherein it was observed as under:

"....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......."

6.1. In view of the aforementioned reasons and judgment cited, the Commission feels that due reply has been given to the appellant. Further, in absence of the appellant and Page 4 of 5 any written objections thereof, the averments made by the respondent are taken on record. There appears to be no public interest in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेशचं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) दनांक/Date:03.12.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत ) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

INDIAN BANK CORPORATE OFFICE, 254-260, AVVAI SHANMUGHAMSALAI, ROYAPETTAH, CHENNAI -600 014 (EARLIER ALLAHABAD BANK) THE F.A.A, INDIAN BANK CORPORATE OFFICE, 254-260, AVVAI SHANMUGHAM SALAI, ROYAPETTAH, CHENNAI - 600 014 Gautam Prakash Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission