Rajender Nr Kapoor vs Allahabad Bank on 2 June, 2020

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Rajender Nr Kapoor vs Allahabad Bank on 2 June, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 23.12.2017 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 16.10.2017 and first appeal dated 11.11.2017:-

"(i) How many Peons, Bill collectors & Daftry were posted in each branch of Delhi in 1981/1982 & total sanctioned strength as per policy.

Page 1 of 7

ii) How many clerks cum cashiers were working in each branch of Delhi & how many vacancies were unfilled as per policy in 1981-1982.

iii) Fate of selected penal of 1980-81 for the post of sub-staff & criteria of posting based on merit / pick up."

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 16.10.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office, New Delhi seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 26.10.2017. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 11.11.2017. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 14.12.2017. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 23.12.2017 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 23.12.2017 inter alia on the grounds that the CPIO & FAA denied desired information which is required for legal purposes. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 26.10.2017 denied the information stating that information sought was not available, retrieval of detailed information pertaining to period i.e. 37 years old would disproportionately divert the resources of public authority. The appeal was disposed of with this reply. The FAA vide his order dated 14.12.2017 upheld the response given by the CPIO.

Hearing on 11.07.2019 4.1. The appellant as well as representative of the respondent Shri Ram Niwas Singh, Chief Manager, Allahabad Bank, attended the hearing in person.

Page 2 of 7

Interim order (dated 17.07.2019) 4.2. The Commission has passed the following order/directions on 17.07.2019:

"5.3. Perusal of records reveals that, the information sought is not the information of temporary or seasonal nature. It relates to the service matter of the serving as well as of the retired employees. There have been standard procedures for retrieval, preservation and classification, indexing and weeding out of public records. The statement made by the respondent that the information could not be provided because the record was old or would disproportionately divert the resources of public authority does not sustain in the eyes of law. The respondent (CPIO) himself is not present and hence the reasons in delay could not be ascertained from him.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, directs the registry of this bench to issue a show cause notice to Mr. A.K. Mohapatra, the then CPIO as well as Mr. Anand Kumar Agarwal, the present CPIO to explain as to why a penalty under section 20(1) of the RTI Act may not be imposed upon each of them for not furnishing the information and giving an evasive reply especially when the principles of natural justice have not been followed while denying the rights of the appellant when he was in service."

Hearing on 11.07.2019:

2. The appellant as well as representative of the respondent Shri Ram Niwas Singh, Chief Manager, Allahabad Bank, attended the hearing in person.

Page 3 of 7

Hearing on 03.10.2019:

4. The appellant and Mr. Anand Kumar Agarwal, present CPIO, Mr. Ram Niwas, Chief Manager, Allahabad Bank, New Delhi and Mr. Ashu Kumar on behalf of Mr. A.K. Mohapatra, the then CPIO, Allahabad Bank, Kolkata, attended the hearing in person.

Interim order dated 17.12.2019 4.1. The Commission has passed the following observation/directions on 17.12.2019:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, notes that the information sought by the appellant was pertaining to very old record i.e. 1981-82. It is pertinent to mention that the respondent in his submissions stated that records have been weeded out by them, however, they did not provide extracts of the weed out register to substantiate their averments. If the records are really not traceable, it reflects the inefficient and pathetic management of files by the Public Authority. If the file/documents could not be traced in spite of best efforts, it is the duty of the respondent to reconstruct the file or develop a mechanism to address the issue raised by the appellant which was not done in this case. In the absence of any documentary proof of destruction of records, the Commission feels that there might be some irregularity in maintenance and preservation of records and this needs to be enquired into. The Commission, therefore, directs the First Appellate Authority, Allahabad, Bank, Zonal office, New Delhi to enquire in to the whole matter and submit the enquiry report to the Commission as well as the appellant within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order. Further, In view of the above, the instant matter is adjourned and the respondent is directed to once again make due efforts to thoroughly search the records and pertaining to the RTI application and furnish the information sought for within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. All the written explanations must reach to this Commission within 21 days."

Hearing on 22.04.2020

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Anand Aggarwal, CPIO, Indian Bank (erstwhile Allahabad Bank), Delhi and Shri A.K. Mahapatra, Field Page 4 of 7 General Manager & the then CPIO, Mumbai attended the hearing through teleconference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that information sought by him was not provided by the respondent so far.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that in compliance of the order 17.12.2019 of the Commission, the FAA had submitted its enquiry report to the Commission on 04.01.2020. They further informed the Commission that the queries raised by the appellant pertaining to the record of year 1981-82 wherein he sought details of posting and sanctioned strength, bill collectors and daftry in each branch, number of clerk cum cashier working in each branch of Delhi during 1980-81. They stated that information sought pertained to administrative record of bank and not of the record of serving employees or of retired employees. They stated that as per the enquiry report of the FAA, two times their office situated at Parliament Street New Delhi was shifted from one place to another to carry out repairing and structural works as directed by the NDMC vide letter dated 16.10.2001. During the shifting, the administrative records of the aforesaid period had been mixed up with the various records, hence, they could not trace the records despite their best efforts. They further submitted that the appellant wanted to redress his service issues between the period of 1975 to 1981 which he had never raised during his service in the bank and not within the period as prescribed by the Law of Limitation. They stated that proper reply had already been given to the appellant from time to time. They also tendered unconditional apology for the inconvenience caused to the appellant as well as the Commission.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, notes that the FAA had submitted a report in compliance of the order 17.12.2019 of the Commission. Perusal of the report submitted by the FAA reveals that information sought pertained to the postings of bill Page 5 of 7 collectors, clerks cum cashiers etc., in each branch of the respondent bank in Delhi during 1980-81. This is not related to the service record of the appellant. It appears that despite best efforts of the respondents, relevant records could not be traced and they have given affidavit in this regard which is available on record. On perusal of the records and enquiry report of the FAA, the Commission feels that there is no conscious or deliberate attempt to withhold the information sought by the appellant. Hence, in the absence of mala fide of part of the respondents, it would not be appropriate to impose penalty on the CPIOs. In view of this, the Show Cause Notices issued to Mr. A.K. Mohapatra, the then CPIO as well as Mr. Anand Kumar Agarwal, the present CPIO, Allahabad Bank (now Indian Bank), Zonal office, New Delhi, are hereby dropped. With the above observations the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

Suresh Chandra((सुरेशचं ा) ा) Information Commissioner(सूचनाआयु ) दनांक/ Date:18.05.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

SH. A.K. MOHAPATRA (THE THEN C.P.I.O), C/O THE C.P.I.O, ALLAHABAD BANK (NOW INDAN BANK), ZONAL OFFICE NEW DELHI, 17, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

SH. ANAND KUMAR AGARWAL (C.P.I.O) ALLAHABAD BANK(NOW INDAN BANK), ZONAL OFFICE NEW DELHI, 17, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI - 110 001 Page 6 of 7 RAJENDER NR KAPOOR, Page 7 of 7

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission