Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Vinod Kumar Prajapati vs Union Bank Of India on 25 August, 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
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/UBIND/A/2019/119209

Vinod Kumar Prajapati                                           ... अपीलकता/Appellant

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

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 20.08.2018                 FA    : 19.12.2018             SA     : 21.04.2019

CPIO : 25.09.2018                FAO : 20.02.2019               Hearing : 27.07.2021


                                          CORAM:
                                    Hon'ble Commissioner
                                  SHRI SURESH CHANDRA
                                         ORDER

(24.08.2021)

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 21.04.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 20.08.2018 and first appeal dated 19.12.2018:-

(i) यह िक बक ने एक एस.सी. कमचारी को एस. सी. कोटे से अिधकारी बना िदया गया है जब िक वह मैिटक पास भी नहीं है I सूचना चािहए िक िकस आधार पर नान मैिटक पास भी एस.सी. कमचारी को अिधकारी बनाया जा सकता है I

(ii) यह िक कोई कमचारी २०१५ म े ट चैनल म पास होकर अिधकारी बन गया ले िकन पा रवा रक प र थित के कारण वह रवसल ले ता है ले िकन पुनः परी ा ले ने पर उसे फेकल कर िदया गया जब िक े ट चैनल म शु के १८ कमचारी ऐसे है जो परी ा Page 1 of 4 पास नहीं कर सकते ों िक उनका रतायारमे ४ या ५ माह बाद है उ पास कर िदया गया जब िक २०१५ से २०१८ तक पूव की भाित कुछ कमचा रयों को तो अिधक ान होगा ले िकन ऐसे कमचा रयों को फेल कर िदया गया है I सूचना चािहए ों I

(iii) सूचना चािहए िक फेल कमचा रयो की माकशीट शाखा म कब तक प ँ च जायेगी I

(iv) यह िक २०१८ म यूिनयन बक ऑफ़ इ या को जो े ट व र ता की परी ा ई थी उसका ा प जनरल बिकंग का होना चािहए था ले िकन परी ा का ा प फ़ा टै क परी ा के आधार पर था सूचना चािहए ों I

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 20.08.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Union Bank of India, Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 25.09.2018 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with that, the appellant filed first appeal dated 19.12.2018 The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 20.02.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 21.04.2019 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 21.04.2019 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant 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.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 05.09.2018 that the appellant had not sought any information, rather, had raised allegations against an employee who was promoted. The FAA concurred with the views taken by the CPIO.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Ambarish Kumar Singh, Deputy General Manager, Union Bank of India, Bandra, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case and endorsing their reply dated 25.09.2018 inter alia submitted that the appellant had merely raised allegations against an employee. Further, the appellant being an employee was aware of the circulars and guidelines regarding promotion which were circulated by way of staff circulars regarding promotion issued from time to time which were also available in the intra net of the bank UBINET.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that due reply was given by the CPIO on 25.09.2018. Further, the appellant raised allegations and sought reasons of promotion of employees, which may not be squarely covered within the definition of "information" under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. That being so, and in absence of the appellant or any written objections, the averments made by the respondent were taken on record. There appears to be no public interest in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 24.08.2021 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 : UNION BANK OF INDIA UNION BANK BHAWAN, 239, VIDHAN BHAWAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 400 021 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, UNION BANK OF INDIA, UNION BANK BHAWAN, 239, VIDHAN BHAWAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 400 021 SH. VINOD KUMAR PRAJAPATI Page 4 of 4