Sanjeev Kumar vs Indian Bank on 28 July, 2022

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Sanjeev Kumar vs Indian Bank on 28 July, 2022

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 28.05.2020 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 20.12.2019 and first appeal dated 29.01.2020:-

आपके नरसा शाखा, धनबाद, झारख ड म धोखा - धडी और जालसाजी करके कुछ Impersonators के वारा बचत खाता खोला गया है ! प'रणाम)व*प, सी.एम.पी.एफ. .े/ीय काया0लय - III, आसनसोल से उपरो2त शाखा वारा खोले गए नौ जाल4 बचत खातो के मा5यम से ई.सी.एल. के मुगमा .े/ के नौ पूव0 कम0चा'रओं से स:बं;धत Page 1 of 6 सी.एम.पी.एफ./पशन के भार4 रकम का नकासी उन नौ Impersonators के वारा >कया गया है ! इस स:ब@ध म सी.एम.पी.एफ. के उपरो2त स:बं;धत .े/ीय काया0लय के वारा आपके Aबंधक, नरसा शाखा को Bदनांक 04.07.2018 को पांच जाल4 बचत खातो के एवं Bदनांक 19.07.2018 को चार जाल4 बचत खातो के बारे म Cशकायत प/ भेजकर उनसे यह आDह >कया गया है >क इस गंभीर अपरा;धक मामलो म आतं'रक जांच कर उपरो2त Impersonators उनके सहयो;गयF (यBद कोई हो) तथा इसम संCलJत आपके बKक कम0चार4/अ;धकार4 (यBद कोई हो) के LवMN आवOयक कानन ू ी काय0वाह4 >कया जाये! Page 2 of 6 Page 3 of 6

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 20.12.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Allahabad Bank (now Indian Bank), Deoghar, Jharkhand, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 20.01.2020 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 29.01.2020. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 26.02.2020 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 28.05.2020 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 28.05.2020 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 20.01.2020 that information sought pertained to personal information of third party and the bank was bound to maintain the financial secrecy of the customers. Accordingly, the CPIO claimed exemptions under Section 8 (1)

(d) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The FAA vide order dated 26.02.2020 stated that information sought was exempted under Section 8 (1) (e), (g), (j), (h) of the RTI Act, 2005.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri I.C. Thakur, Chief Manager, Indian Bank (erstwhile Allahabad Bank), Deoghar attended the hearing through video conference.

Page 4 of 6

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that information sought pertained to personal information of third party, held by the bank in fiduciary capacity, disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest. Accordingly, exemptions was claimed under Section 8 (1) (d), (e), (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. They further submitted that nine forged accounts were opened by the impersonators through CSP (Customer Service Point) and thereafter they committed fraud by withdrawing pension of nine employees from the bank. They stated that the matter was investigated by the CBI as well as the Police authorities therefore exemption was claimed under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. Further, they stated that they were not sure as to whether investigation was completed or not.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that reply given by the respondent was incomplete. The information sought pertained to a fraud committed by some impersonators by opening forged accounts through CSP (Customer Service Point). Therefore, the public interest demands that information sought should be disclosed to the appellant, if the investigation was over. In view of the above, the RTI application may be re-looked into and point-wise information including investigation stage may be informed to the appellant except personal information such as names, addresses, telephone nos. etc. within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 25.07.2022 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) दनांक/Date: 25.07.2022 Page 5 of 6 Addresses of the parties:

THE CPIO: ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER INDIAN BANK ( ERSTWHILE ALLAHABAD BANK) ZONAL OFFICE: 49 B, SRIKANT ROAD, BELABAGAN BAIDHYANARH DHAM, DEOGHAR- 814112 JHARKHAND THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY CIRCLE GENERAL MANAGER INDIAN BANK ( ERSTWHILE ALLAHABAD BANK) PARAS COMPLEX, LALPUR CHOW, RANCHI -834001 JHARKHAND SHRI SANJEEV KUMAR Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission