Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Chayan Ghosh Chowdhury vs Union Bank Of India on 9 September, 2025

                                 के ीय सूचना आयोग
                           Central Information Commission
                              बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                            Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                           नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं     ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/UBIND/A/2024/634259 +
           िशकायत सं     ा / Complaint No. CIC/UBIND/C/2024/630606

Chayan Ghosh Chowdhury                                  ... अपीलकता/Appellant
                                                     ...िशकायतकता/Complainant


                                    VERSUS
                                     बनाम
 CPIO: Union Bank of India
 Mumbai                                                 ... ितवादीगण/Respondent

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal/Complaint:

                                                           SA/Complaint :
 RTI : 12.05.2024             FA    : 10.07.2024
                                                           08.08.2024 & 17.07.2024
 CPIO :     10.06.2024        FAO : 01.08.2024             Hearing   : 02.09.2025
Note - The above-mentioned Appeal/complaint have been clubbed together for
decision as these are based on similar RTI Applications.

Date of Decision: 08.09.2025

                                       CORAM:
                                 Hon'ble Commissioner
                               _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                      ORDER

1. The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 12.05.2024 seeking information on the following points:-

 Background: As per information available in public domain, Sh Pankaj Dwivedi, Executive Director of Union Bank of India is guilty of Sexual Harassment as defined in The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Page 1 of 5 Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act,2013). Sh Pankaj Dwivedi is enlarged on Bail for allegedly committing offence under Sec. 354A & 509 of Indian Penal Code. With reference to Sh Pankaj Dwivedi, kindly provide the following information:

1) Copy of the Circular/Notification/ OM vide which duties have been entrusted to Sh Pankaj Dwivedi.

2) As per Bank records, kindly provide Courtwise list of cases contested by Sh Pankaj Dwivedi

a) As Petitioner

b) As Respondent/Defendant

3) Certified copy of the Policy of Union Bank of India for extending litigation expenses to officials facing civil & criminal proceedings before a court of law for acts of moral turpitude.

4) Casewise details of litigation expenses reimbursed by Union Bank of India to Sh Pankaj Dwivedi, since date of his appointment to date of providing information.

5) Certified copy of Conduct Rules applicable on Executive Directors of Union Bank of India.

2. The CPIO uploaded wrong reply dated 11.06.2024.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 10.07.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 01.08.2024 stated as under: -

"It is observed that inadvertently wrong reply was uploaded to the RTI request of the appellant. Therefore, CPIO is directed to provide revised reply to the appellant."

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant/Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal/Complaint dated 08.08.2024 & 17.07.2024. Subsequently, in compliance of the FAA's order, the CPIO uploaded correct reply dated 10.06.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-

1. It is an internal document which has not any relation with public interest.

2. Information is not available with Bank.

3. There is no such document.

4. Nil.

5. In reference to the information sought, the relevant document is enclosed.

5. The appellant/complainant attended the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Ganesh, CPIO, attended the hearing through audio conference.

6. The appellant/complainant inter alia submitted that he had sought copy of circular vide which duties have been entrusted to Mr. Pankaj Dwivedi and courtwise list of cases contested by Mr. Pankaj who was involved in sexual harassment case etc.. against which the CPIO vide letter dated 11.06.2024 had furnished wrong reply addressing the queries related to some Mr. Kumar Kaushal Kaushik which was not requested. However, in compliance of the FAA's order dated 01.08.2024, the CPIO uploaded correct response dated 10.06.2024. The Complainant stated that information sought has not been provided by the CPIO except on point no. 5 of the RTI application. Additionally, on point no. 1, information sought was denied stating 'internal document' which is not an exemption as per provisions of the RTI Act, and on point nos. 2 to 4, false reply has been provided. In appeal case, the appellant requested the Commission to direct the respondent to furnish the information as sought. Further, in complaint case, he requested for imposition of penalty for furnishing information of Mr. Kumar Kaushal Kaushik. A written submission dated 25.08.2025 of the appellant/complainant has been taken on record.

7. The respondent, while defending their case, reaffirmed their earlier response dated 10.06.2024 and submitted that point-wise reply as per available records had been furnished to the appellant/complainant. When queried by the Commission regarding availability of information on point no. 2 to 4, the respondent stated that no information is available on said points. The respondent further stated that inadvertently the reply to some other RTI application was uploaded against the instant RTI application. A written submission dated 30.08.2025 of the respondent has been taken on record.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that initially, the CPIO has provided a wrong reply to the RTI application vide letter dated 11.06.2024 against which the present complaint has been filed. Subsequently, upon receipt of the reply dated 10.06.2024 in compliance of the FAA's order, the appellant filed second appeal. In file no.

CIC/UBIND/A/2024/634259, an appropriate reply has been provided by the CPIO vide letter dated 10.06.2024, except on point no. 1. The Commission notes that on point no. 1 the appellant has sought copy of circular vide which duties have been entrusted to Mr. Pankaj and the same cannot be denied stating 'internal document' which is not an exemption as per provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, the Commission directs the CPIO to furnish a copy of the circular as sought on point no. 1, after redacting any personal information of third party, if any, in consonance with section 10 of the RTI Act, 2005, to the appellant within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. With this observation and direction, the appeal is disposed of.

9. Further, in file no. CIC/UBIND/C/2024/630606, the Commission finds no mala- fides by the CPIO. However, the CPIO is hereby cautioned against mindless denial of information without citing the relevant exemption clauses as per section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act as the same will not be viewed liberally by the Commission in future. Accordingly, the complaint is closed.

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

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 08.09.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO, Union Bank of India, Central Office, Union Bank Bhavan, HR Department, 8th Floor, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 2 Chayan Ghosh Chowdhury Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)