Central Information Commission
Roshni Joshi vs United Commercial Bank (Uco) on 31 March, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईिद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/UCOBK/A/2020/672392
Roshni Joshi ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
UCO Bank, RTI Cell, HRM
Department, Head Office,
Kolkata, 10BTM Sarani,
Kolkata-700001, West Bengal. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 09/01/2023
Date of Decision : 24/03/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 23/03/2020
CPIO replied on : 16/04/2020
First appeal filed on : 17/04/2020
First Appellate Authority's order : 30/05/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.01.2019 seeking the following information:1
"Kindly provide me the grounds on which my suspension got revoked by HO, HRM, UCO Bank. Kindly Provide me with the circular under which HO, HRM to suspend and revoke any employee without furnishing any reasons Kindly let me know the grounds on which my suspension dated 31.01.2020 got approved from your end."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 16.04.2020 stating as under:-
"The Suspension was revoked at the recommendation of ZM-Mumbai, on the ground that disposal of RDA initiated against Ms. Roshni Joshi may take time hence meanwhile, her services was required to be utilized.
Further, regarding your Queries upon Banks circulars, you may visit to the Banks portal containing circulars for internal purposes and open to all the Banks officials"
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.04.2020 stating as under:
"Requested information has not been furnished to me and malafidely I have been denied of information. Whole bank knows that I am a victim of sexual harassment AND criminal Conspiracy as well as Full fledged CORRUPTION in our bank. I request you to furnish me with the following information:
Grounds/ reasons on which my suspension dated 31.01.2020 got approved by the authorities based at Head Office.
2. Circular on the basis of which I got suspended AND got revoked. As the explanation of all circulars are accessible, is lame I require copy of circulars on the basis of which higher authorities in HEAD OFFICE approved my suspension without furnishing me any grounds on it. Please make sure to supply with the specific circulars for the same."
FAA's order dated 30.05.2020, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
2Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: Khushi Ram, AGM & CPIO present through audio conference.
The Appellant was heard at length during the course of which she desired to narrate in detail the factual background of the information sought for in the RTI Application as well as the entire timeline of the alleged sexual harassment case being pursued by her. While the Commission continued to hear her submissions, she was counselled about the scope and mandate of the RTI Act which did not warrant a threadbare analysis of the said factual background or the gamut of questions and dissatisfaction she stated to be having with the action taken by the Respondent Bank in the matter of the alleged sexual harassment. However, she burst into frenzied arguments expressing her discontent with the hearing proceedings and demanded to be heard in the manner she deemed as fit.
The CPIO reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant and the hearing was concluded reserving the decision in the matter.
Decision:
In view of the hearing proceedings, the Commission deems it fit to verbatim quote the contents of the written submissions (17 pages excluding enclosures) filed by the Appellant on 17.01.2023 (common to 9 of her Appeals that were listed for hearing in a bunch manner), of which, the factual background is being quoted only to the extent that provides a gist of the narrative, as other details bear sensitive information related to the case averred to have put forth to the Internal Complaints Committee of the Respondent Bank and other concerned competent authorities:
"1. In UCO Bank fence is eating crops! At the outset, the instant case is in respect of one malaise, "Corruption " - the cancer at the heart of so many problems that has been plaguing the Indian Banking System, particularly the Public Sector Banks. The illegal & unethical practices flourishing in UCO Bank and the relentless harassment and irreparable detriment caused, constrained me to file as many as nine appeals before the CIC. This case is a jarring example of how conscious efforts to scuttle the investigation, thereby stifling the complaints of grievous nature and brow-beating of a whistle-blower, have been made in a 3 recurring manner, by certain top- executives of the respondent bank. Respondents allegedly abused their powers and misused their positions in harbouring one another, thereby, committing various offences, inter alia offences of perpetrating corrupt practices, criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery, using fabricated documents as genuine, and offences involving moral turpitude, liable to be punished under the various Indian laws, in order to ensure that their nefarious activities, inter alia abuse of powers, enabling of sexual harassment and perpetrating cruelties on employees of the respondent bank could go unchecked without any hindrance.
2. The instant case is a glaring example of relentless persecution of a woman employee of a Public Sector Bank, who has been taken in reprisal, thereby converting entire machinery available at disposal of respondent bank, into an instrument to harbour perpetrators & settle personal score by the means of frequent transfers, arbitrary suspensions, spoiling her career and disqualifying her from the promotion, bombarding her with plethora of forged and fabricated show- causes, reminders, notices and as many as three fabricated charge- sheets basing outright fictitious and fabricated complaints cropped up against her, illegally removing her from services of UCO Bank, hounding her with carrying out perennial and everlasting inquires thereby keeping such departmental proceedings at abeyance for an indefinite period, all this to her, only because she opposed & acted against the sexual advances of a stalwart union leader of the bank and blew whistles in discharge of her duties as a banker, against corrupt practices being carried out in respondent bank.
xxx
30. The gist of aforementioned facts have been brought out succinctly in the following words: In pursuance of alleged incident of sexual harassment, Mr. Harmohan Arora, Mr. Naresh kumar & Mr. Atul Kumar Goel allegedly in complicity with the AIBOC Leaders, among other conspirators hatched a criminal conspiracy against me, thereby colluding with one another, they attempted to muzzle the complaints of grievous nature filed against them, throw me out of bank's premises, forcibly transferred and illegally suspended my service, cropped up forged and fabricated complaints, dodged my requests to provide copies of crucial pieces of evidence, and cropped up as many as three (03) bogus inquiries against me, with an ulterior motive of wielding quasi-judicial powers, as a tool for a witch- hunt and a means to ensure that a pendora's box is not opened. I was allegedly faced with gang of powerful leaders and executives, who in order favour perpetrators abused their powers recurrently, and illegally threw me out of the 4 services, that caused me a wrongful loss to the tune of 20 lakh approx. in terms of emoluments, & also caused irreparable harm to my body, mind and reputation; that I was removed from the bank's service without passing any final Order w. r. t the inquiry proceedings conducted into the allegations of sexual harassment; that at the same, time, all the complaints alleging said top executives of the bank of having committed various corrupt activities, are pending for their disposal at UCO bank's end, and thereby suppressing material facts stated therein the said complaints, I have been illegally removed from the service, just to ensure that pendora's box is not opened. A Writ petition to this effect bearing Ref. No. 5092/2021 has been filed before the Bombay High Court."
Further, with specific reference to the information sought for in the instant RTI Application, the following contentions have been stated by the Appellant in her written submissions:
"34) With respect to information sought under Point No. "A" as enumerated above, no information was received by me, either from the CPIO Or from the First Appellate Authority, appointed for the purpose of the First appeal filed in this regard, whereas, with regards to the information sought under Point No. "B", the CPIO provided grounds for the revocation of said suspension dated 30.01.2020, in his own version and not in the version of de facto competent authority, as was sought by me. As regards with Point No. "C", I was instructed by the concerned CPIO to browse bank's internal portal.
35) Now, as soon as the alleged fictitious and forged complaints came to be filed against me at Nerul Branch, UCO Bank, the suspension order dated 30.01.2020, was passed in accordance with the UCO Bank Officer Employee's Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976, as amended. That Subsequently order on the revocation of the said suspension was passed by by the competent authority-
Mr. Naresh Kumar, vide e-mail dated 21.03.2020. That the formal order of revocation dt. 23.03.2020 was received by me with the directions that, I be treated on duty for the period of said suspension and be paid all financial & nonfinancial benefits which I was entitled to, during the period of such suspension.
36) From a bare perusal of the said suspension order dated 30.01.2020 and the order approving revocation of the said suspension dated 21.03.2020, it is evident that, both of them do not bear any grounds based on which they were approved by Mr. Naresh Kumar. Moreover, neither the charge-sheet dated 29.04.2020 nor any document brought on the records of the inquiry proceedings w. r. t. the charge-sheet dated 29.04.2020, exhibit any reasons, basing which Mr. 5 Naresh kumar approved the said Suspension order dated 30.01.2020 and order of revocation.
37) At the outset I was apprised by Mr. Naresh Kumar claiming that "they generally check the matter before approving any suspension", and he went on to mention that, I do not know kaise ho gaya. I will have to see" Nonetheless, no grounds basing which he approved my suspension and the revocation of the said suspension dated 21.03.2020, were cited in the said orders.
38) The CPIO remained silent on the grounds recorded by Mr. Naresh Kumar, for the approval of the said suspension dated 30.01.2020. Nonetheless over the grounds based on which the competent authority approved the order of revocation dated 21.03.2020 the CPIO concerned informed that, "the said suspension was revoked at the recommendations of then Zonal Manager, Mr. Harmohan Arora. And further provided that, because the disposal of RDA would take time, hence meanwhile my services were required to be utilised."
39) It is contented that, while claiming aforesaid grounds with respect to the order of revocation dated 21.03.2020, the CPIO exhibited the reasons/ grounds written in the version and language of the CPIO's own, and not in the version, that were recorded by Mr. Naresh Kumar. This creates a reasonable doubt in the mind of the applicant, as to why did not the CPIO simply forwarded the document, in which the aforesaid grounds as were claimed by the CPIO, with ref. to the order of revocation dated 21.03.2020, were furnished by Mr. Naresh Kumar, and instead of simply forwarding the document exhibiting the grounds recorded by Mr. Naresh Kumar, why did CPIO furnished such grounds in the version & language of CPIO?
40) The attempt made by the CPIO to furnish the grounds with respect to the order of revocation, in his own language and version, instead that of version recorded by the competent authority, has inadvertently turned out to be denial of the said information, because the information sought in the instant RTI Application with respect to the grounds of revocation, was about the grounds recorded by the competent authority, and not by the CPIO, as have been provided to me, in an erring manner.
41) This leads us to perceive that, the applicant ended up in non-receipt of the information, on both counts, i. e. grounds for the approval of the suspension order dated 30.01.2020 and the grounds for approval of order of revocation dated 21.03.2020, as recorded by the competent authority.
42) Because the CPIO remained silent on the grounds for approval of the suspension order dated 30.01.2020, and aslo no grounds as recorded by the competent authority, with respect to order of revocation dt. 21.03.2020 were provided by the CPIO, this gives rise to two probabilities. AA Either competent 6 authority, namely, Mr. Naresh Kumar recorded such grounds for approval of the said suspension order and order of revocation, in writing BB Or the concerned competent authority, verbally/orally informed the concerned CPIO, basing which he approved both the orders.
43) If the probability "AA" as stated hereinabove turns out to be the fact, and if the grounds for approval of the suspension and revocation orders were recorded by Mr. Naresh Kumar in writing, as mentioned under probability ""A", the same documents/letters exhibiting the grounds recorded by Mr. Naresh Kumar, with respect to approval of said suspension and revocation order, please be provided to me on account of reasons explained hereinbelow.
i. That disciplinary matters such as suspensions and the revocations of suspensions in UCO Bank, are governed in accordance with Disciplinary and appeal rules of the bank.
ii. That in respect of the Disciplinary proceedings instituted in relation to the charge-sheet dt. 29.04.2020, denial of the defence documents, as requisite by the charge-sheeted officer, would stand in violation of regulation 6(10)(b)(ii) of the disciplinary and Appeal regulations of UCO Bank.
iii. That denial of documents exhibiting the grounds for approval of said suspension and revocation orders, as recorded by the Competent Authority, are also in contravention of the 'The principle of "audi alteram partem" or "let the other side be heard as well" & right of the charge-sheeted officer to disclosure of material.
44) In case the probability "BB" as referred to hereinabove, turns out to be true and, the CPIO concerned have to submit that, there is no record of the grounds, stated by Mr. Naresh Kumar, with respect to the approval of the said suspension order, as the same was approved without recording any grounds, and with respect to the grounds for approval of the revocation orders, the same was claimed by the CPIO, based on some verbal communication, I may have to submit following under this scenario:
xxx
45) In view of the foregoing facts, it is submitted that, I please be provided information as referred to hereinabove under Point "A" - "The grounds basing which the order of suspension dated 30.01.2020 was approved by the then General Manager, HO, HRM dept., namely, Mr. Naresh Kumar' and the information as referred to hereinabove under Point "B" - "The grounds based on which he revoked the said suspension order dated 30.01.2020". Thus, it is 7 submitted that, I kindly be provided the grounds recorded by the competent authority, with respect to the approval of the said suspension and revocation Orders
46)With respect to the third and last information sought under the said RTI Application, concerned CPIO instructed me to go through the circulars available on bank's internal portal. But while perusing many of them, I didn't find any circular, that conferred the then General Manager, HO HRM- Mr. Naresh Kumar the powers to approve the orders of suspension and revocation, without furnishings any grounds to the affected person. So, the relevant circular which conferred powers to the GM, HO HRM, to authorise such approvals, kindly be made available to me."
At the very outset, the Commission notes that the information sought for by the Appellant is in the form of seeking for clarifications, justification that does not constitute as 'information' under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.."
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not 8 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. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."
(Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;9
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." Emphasis Supplied Similarly, a bare perusal of the grounds of the Appellant's dissatisfaction as communicated through her appeal grounds as well as her written submissions suggest that she is questioning the merits of the action/inaction of the Respondent office against her sexual harassment complaint; merits of the suspension order issued to her and issues related thereto. None of these aspects of the case are amenable to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the RTI Act or are answerable by the CPIO within his mandate under the Act. Here, the Appellant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", 10 the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) Having observed as above, the Commission is not in a position to order any relief in the matter as the reply provided by the CPIO is appropriate as per the provisions of the RTI Act. For any further dissatisfaction with the alleged administrative decisions taken by the Respondent Bank or the alleged inaction, the Appellant is advised to approach the appropriate forum.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित)
(C.A. Joseph)
Dy. Registrar
011-26179548/ [email protected]
सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पं जीयक
िदनां क /
11