Central Information Commission
Poonam vs State Bank Of India on 31 March, 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/SBIND/C/2019/603563
Poonam ...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: State Bank of India,
Regional Business Office IV, ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Patiala.
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 23.04.2018 FA : 21.11.2018 Complaint : 24.02.2019
CPIO : 23.10.2018 FAO : 17.12.2018 Hearing : 23.03.2021
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
SHRI SURESH CHANDRA
ORDER
(26.03.2021)
1. The issues under consideration i.e. the reliefs sought by the complainant in his complaint dated 24.02.2019 due to alleged non-supply of information vide his RTI application dated 23.04.2018 are as under:-
Request to penalize and punish concerned officers and intimate him about action on the complaint.
2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the complainant filed an application dated 23.04.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Page 1 of 4 Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Regional Business Office IV, Patiala, seeking following information:
(i) Please provide information about number of letters sent from State Bank of India, Regional Business Office IV, Patiala as under:-
Date No. of letters No. of letters No. of letters N. of letters sent No. of letters sent sent through sent through sent through through courier through other mode ordinary post registered post speed post services (by hand or other) 09.08.2017 10.08.2017 11.08.2017 12.08.2017 13.08.2017 14.08.2017 15.08.2017 16.08.2017 17.08.2017 18.08.2017 19.08.2017 20.08.2017 21.08.2017 The CPIO vide letter dated 23.10.2018 replied to the complainant. Dissatisfied with this, the complainant filed first appeal dated 21.11.2018. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 17.12.2018 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by this, the complainant filed a complaint dated 24.02.2019 before this Commission which is under consideration.
3. The complainant has filed the instant complaint dated 24.02.2019 inter alia on the grounds that reply was given by the CPIO after 183 days and therefore penal action must be initiated against the concerned CPIO. The complainant 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.Page 2 of 4
4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 23.10.2018 that the information was exempted under provisions of sections 7 (9), 8 (1) (d) and 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act. The FAA directed the CPIO to re-look into the matter as the number of letters could be apprised to the complainant and provide appropriate reply to the complainant as per provisions of the RTI Act.
5. The complainant's authorized person Shri Satish Aggarwal and on behalf of the respondent Shri Paramjeet Singh Sodi, CPIO, State Bank of India, Patiala attended the hearing through video conference.
5.1. The complainant inter alia submitted that he had received the information vide letter dated 01.01.2019. However, there was delay of almost two years and requested the Commission to initiate appropriate action against the concerned CPIOs.
5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the then CPIO had denied the information. The respondent regretted the decision taken by the then CPIO and stated that it was an error of judgment on his part. However, in compliance of the directions of the FAA complete information was provided to the complainant vide letter dated 01.01.2019.
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that due reply was given vide CPIO's letter dated 01.01.2019. However, the delay caused in furnishing the information does n appear to be deliberate and error in judgment may not be the only ground for initiating penal action against the CPIO. In absence of any mala fide on the part of the CPIO, the delay is condoned. Accordingly, the complaint is rejected.
Sd/-
(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 26.03.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:
CPIO : 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE - 4, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE - PATIALA, MALL ROAD, PATIALA, PUNJAB - 147 001 THE F.A.A, GENERAL MANAGER (NW-1), STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, SEC. - 17B, CHANDIGARH - 160 017 MS. POONAM Page 4 of 4