Central Information Commission
Pankaj Kumar vs Bank Of India on 8 December, 2021
Author: Suresh Chandra
Bench: Suresh Chandra
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No.CIC/BKOIN/A/2017/607629
Pankaj Kumar ...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Bank of India
Adampur Chowk
Bhagalpur, Bihar ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 29.08.2017 FA : Dated Nil SA : 07.11.2017 CNC : Nil
CPIO : No reply FAO : 14.11.2017 Order : 20.04.2020 Hearing : 20.10.2021
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
SHRI SURESH CHANDRA
ORDER
(07.12.2021)
1. The issues under consideration is the complaint of non-compliance of CIC's orders dated 20.04.2020 in the matter.
2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the complainant filed an application dated 29.08.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of India, Adampur Chowk, Bhagalpur, Bihar, seeking following information:-
A representation dated 09.08.2017 (copy attached) was made to the CMD, Bank of India with a copy to i) ZM Bhagalpur, ii) Regional Head, Kolkata, iii) Head of HR, Bank of India, against Mr. Yash Kumar, Posted as clerk in Parora Branch, Bank of India, Purnea, Bihar for misusing official address of Bank, official mobile number and official email id of Bank of India allotted to my wife Sunita Kumari the then Branch Manager of Parora Branch, for seeking private and personal information about me, which amounts to misconduct while discharging his official duty. As per consignment tracking system of Indian Speed Post (Consignment No.- EF064246942IN), item was delivered on 14.08.2017. With reference to above representation, you are requested to provide following information,
(i) Was the information asked by Mr. Yash Kumar through RTI (copy attached) officially sanctioned?
(ii) If yes, name of the sanctioning authority along with purpose for which RTI was filed by Mr. Yash Kumar may please be provided.
(iii) If, information asked by Mr. Yash Kumar was not officially sanctioned then action taken by Bank of India on ground of misconduct may please be provided.
The CPIO did not give any reply. Aggrieved by this, the complainant filed a first appeal dated Nil. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 14.11.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant filed a second appeal dated 07.11.2017 before the Commission which was under consideration and the Commission vide order dated 23.05.2019 passed the following direction:-
"5.3. The Commission feels that the appellant through his RTI application did not demand any kind of action against errant officials. The objective of the RTI is not to hold an individual's action wrong or right but the object is to obtain information as it is. The Commission feels that the reply given by the respondent is evasive and perfunctory. They should have given the information as it was. It appears that one individual Mr. Yash Kumar filed RTI application using official email of the respondent bank to seek information from the appellant's office. If it is so then it is the responsibility of the respondent to admit or deny as to whether it is within their knowledge or not. They have not specifically denied as to whether they have authorized any of their employee to seek somebody's personal information from the employer of the appellant.
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, directs the respondent to re-visit the RTI application and furnish information sought by the appellant. If there is any inquiry conducted by the respondent a copy thereof may also be made available to the appellant within ten days of receipt of this order. The respondent is advised to be more cautious in future while dealing with RTI applications. With these observations and directions the appeal is disposed of."
3. The complainant has filed the instant non-compliance complaint dated 17.06.2019 inter alia on the grounds that the CPIO had not complied with the directions of the Commission passed on 23.05.2019.
4. The CPIO replied that they had complied with the directions of the Commission and furnished information vide letter dated 19.06.2019.
Hearing on 19.11.2019:
4.1. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Rajiv Sinha, Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Bhagalpur, attended the hearing through video conference.
Interim decision (dated 27.11.2019) 4.2. The Commission has passed the following observations/directions on 27.11.2019:
"6. The Commission, after adverting to the facts and considerations of the case, perusal of records and hearing both the parties, feels that the respondent has not complied with the order of the Commission nor re-visited the RTI application. The respondent has only compiled with the 2nd portion of the direction i.e. to provide an inquiry report. The CPIO was not present on the date of hearing and the representatives were not able to properly present the case. In view of this, the Registry of this bench is directed to issue show cause notice to Shri Nabaroon Chatterjee, present CPIO, as to why a maximum penalty may not be imposed upon him for not complying with directions of the Commission and for not appearing before the Commission. The Written submissions must reach this Commission within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The CPIO is also directed to furnish complete information as per directions of the order dated 23.05.2019."
Hearing on 18.02.2020 4.3 The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Nabarun Chatterjee, CPIO & Dy. Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Bhagalpur, attended the hearing through video conference.
Interim Decision (dated 20.04.2020) 4.4 The Commission has passed the following observations/directions on 20.04.2020:
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, notes that the respondent has clarified the queries raised in the RTI application during the hearing. However, they did not provide the revised point wise reply/information as directed by the Commission vide inter order dated 23.05.2019. The Commission vide interim order dated 23.05.2019 had directed the respondent to provide revised information to the appellant and if there was any inquiry conducted by the respondent, a copy of inquiry report may also be given appellant. Perusal of the records reveals that the respondent had provided only copy of the inquiry report following the directions of the Commission and not revised para-wise information. It appeared that directions of the Commission werecomplied with partially by the respondent. Even through the respondent had clarified the same during the hearing but the same should have been provided to the appellant in writing which had not been done till then. The respondent also failed to provide the reasons as to why information was not provided by the respondent so far. Further, non-compliance of the order of the Commission appeared to be deliberate on part of the CPIO Mr. Nabarun Chatterjee, hence, he was found liable as per section 20 (1) of RTI Act.In view of this, the Commission feels that this is a fit case to impose penalty on the concerned CPIO.In view of this, a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) may be imposed on Mr. Nabarun Chatterjee the CPIO and the penalty amount ofRs. 10,000/- shall be deducted from the salary of Nabarun Chatterjee, the CPIO (in two installments) by the Public Authority and paid by way of demand draft drawn in two equal installments in favour of "PAO, CAT", New Delhi, forward the demand drafts addressed to the Deputy Registrar (CR-II), email: [email protected] Room No. 106, First Floor, Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi 110067. The first installment of penalty amount should reach to the Commission by 18.05.2020 and the final installment should reach the Commission by 18.06.2020.
6.1. The Commission further directs the respondent to provide revised point-wise information to the appellant, within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
With these observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.
Hearing on 20.10.2021
5. The appellant represented by his counsel Shri Ranjit Ranjan and on behalf of the respondent Ms Vinita, Deputy Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Bhagalpur, attended the hearing through video conference.
5.1. The representative of the appellant inter alia submitted that information provided by the respondent was not satisfactory.
5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that in compliance of the order of the Commission, they provided revised point-wise information to the appellant vide letter dated 19.06.2020. They tendered unconditional apology for the delay caused in this matter and assured that no such incident would recur in future.
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, noted that due reply was given by the respondent vide letter dated 19.06.2020 and order of the Commission is complied with. Moreover, penalty had already been imposed on the concerned CPIO in this case. Further, the respondent tendered unconditional apology for the delay caused in this matter and assured the Commission that no such incident would occur in future. In view of the above, the Commission feels that no public purpose would be served in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the complaint of non-compliance is closed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
Suresh Chandra (सुरेशचं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) दनांक/ Date: .07.12.2021 Authenticated true copy (अिध मािणत स य ित) R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मू त) Deputy Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Address of the parties:
CPIO :
BANK OF INDIA ADAMPUR CHOWK, BHAGALPUR, BIHAR - 812 001 PANKAJ KUMAR