Central Information Commission
Ajay Kumar Gupta vs Bank Of India on 21 July, 2023
Author: Suresh Chandra
Bench: Suresh Chandra
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीयअपीलसं या / Second Appeal Nos. CIC/BKOIN/A/2021/620635
CIC/BKOIN/C/2021/620637
Ajay Kumar Gupta ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Bank of India,
New Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 06.03.2021 FA : 17.03.2021 SA : 29.05.2021
CPIO : 12.03.2021 FAO : 05.05.2021 Hearing : 19.05.2023
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
SHRI SURESH CHANDRA
ORDER
(20.07.2023)
1. The issues raised in the RTI application out of which the appeal and complaint arose were identical. Therefore, it is felt desirable to pass a common order in both the cases.
1.1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 29.05.2021 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 06.03.2021 and first appeal dated 17.03.2021:-
File No. CIC/BKOIN/A/2021/620635 "RTI pertains to the Bank of India, Okhla SME, 4 DSIIDC Shed, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi 110020 regarding the grievance vide Sl No.P1/C/2309200233 dated 23.09.2020 pertaining to the affairs of M/s Delta Factors India P. Ltd raised by the applicant Mr.Ajay Kumar Gupta who is also a Director of the subject Page 1 of 6 Company. The said grievance has been Filed/closed by the bank vide letter dated 30.01.2021. The following information is sought:
(i) Please provide inspection of the file/s pertaining to the above grievance as per records.
(ii) Please provide copies of documents with noting from the file/s pertaining to the above grievance as per records."
CIC/BKOIN/C/2021/620637 The following relief was sought by the complainant in his complaint dated 29.05.2021:
Kindly initiate necessary action as per the provisions of the RTI Act
2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 06.03.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of India, New Delhi, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 12.03.2021 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 17.03.2021. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 05.05.2021 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 29.05.2021 before the Commission which is under consideration.
3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 29.05.2021inter 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 12.03.2021 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"You have not enclosed any Documents/Board resolution from the company to substantiate your relation as Director and authorized to seek information related to company's account. Therefore, the information sought is being confidential in Page 2 of 6 nature and held with us in fiduciary capacity is exempted from disclosure as per under section 8(1)(e) and 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act".
The FAA vide order dated 05.05.2021 agreed with the reply given by the CPIO Hearing on 11.11.2022 4.1. The appellant with son Shri Ativ Guptaand on behalf of the respondent ShriManoj Kumar Jain, CPIO and Ms. Rachna, Law Officer, Bank of India, Delhi attended the hearing in person.
Interim order dated 20.01.2023 4.2. The Commission has passed the following observations and directions on 20.01.2023:
"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the respondent denied the information by claiming exemption under provisions of section 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act 2005. It was also evident from the records and discussions during the course of hearing that Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta was not a stranger. He was one of the Directors of the Company. It is also an admitted fact that he as a whistleblower brought into notice of authorities siphoning of huge amount of public money. It is not the case that the appellant had been seeking information about the company. In the RTI application, he had sought the action taken on his complaint and he was entitled to the same. The objective of RTI is to bring transparency, accountability and consequently prevent corruption and the objective might be defeated if the erring officials are protected under the guise of fiduciary relationship or right to privacy. Therefore, in the interest of administration of justice and larger public interest, the respondent is directed that the appellant may be provided with inspection of files pertaining to his complaint/grievances and provide copies of the documents including notings identified by the appellant during the inspection on a mutually convenient date communicated to the appellant. The entire process may be complete within four Page 3 of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With these directions and observations, the appeal [CIC/BKOIN/A/2021/620635] is allowed and adjourned till the next date of hearing. In the complaint CIC/BKOIN/C/2021/620637, Shri Manoj Kumar Jain, CPIO is show caused as to why penalty under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act may not be imposed upon each of them for not furnishing the requisite information. All written submissions may be uploaded on the Commission's web portal within 21 days."
Hearing on 19.05.2023
5. The appellant along with his son Shri Ativ Gupta and on behalf of the respondent Shri Manoj Kumar Jain, CPIO and Ms. Rachna, Law officer, Bank of India, Delhi attended the hearing in person.
5.1 The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent bank was aware of the facts that he was one of the directors of the company M/s Delta Factors India P. Ltd. However, they had not provided the information within the stipulated time. He further submitted that he had apprehension that complete documents were not given for inspection as there was no file noting on the records. Besides, he stated that his complaints which was forwarded to the bank had been shared with some third party. Accordingly, he requested the Commission to impose maximum penalty on the concerned CPIO.
5.2 The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that in compliance of the order of the Commission, they had facilitated inspection of the records or files pertaining to the appellant's complaint/grievances and provided copies of the documents selected by him. They further submitted that the appellant's complaint was related to the company therefore the then CPIO while replying to the RTI application denied the information on the ground of third party information as the appellant had not enclosed any document/board resolution to substantiate his claim that he was one of the directors of the aforesaid company. They stated that there was no mala fide on their part in replying to the RTI application. They informed that it was not the case that the appellant had filed a complaint to the bank and sought action taken report on his complaint. Here, Page 4 of 6 the complaint was raised by the appellant vide his letter dated 30.01.2021 addressed to the branch inter alia referring his earlier grievance & complaint raised under Whistleblower Policy with the Reserve Bank of India. It was also submitted that the appellant had not disclosed the facts that firstly he had filed whistleblower complaint to the RBI which was forwarded to the Bank. The respondent bank had examined the complaint independently and found that there was no merit in the complaint and advised accordingly to the RBI. Thereafter, the RBI had closed the complaint on 17.03.2020, however, the same issue was again raised by the appellant before the President Secretariat on 23.09.2020 which was in reference to his previous complaint. They stated that there was dispute amongst the directors of the said company and even the police complaint was filed and the matter was being investigated. They stated that the appellant's complaint was closed after due examination and all the relevant papers were given to the appellant.
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the respondent had complied with the order of the Commission and provided inspection of the records to the appellant. They also informed that the documents selected by the appellant after inspection were provided to him. The respondent during the course of hearing submitted that the appellant's complaint addressed to the RBI was forwarded to the bank which was examined independently and found that there was no merit in the complaint. Accordingly, the respondent bank had advised to the RBI and thereafter the complaint was closed. Further, it was brought to the notice of the Commission that on the same issue the appellant had filed another complaint to the President's Secretariat on 23.09.2020 which was also forwarded to the bank. The respondent had informed that they had duly replied the appellant as well as the President's Secretariat. In addition to the above, the respondent informed that they had asked the appellant to visit the branch for discussion or clarification. Accordingly, the appellant had visited the branch and he was clarified all the facts and also given necessary documents. The respondent had informed that all the papers related to the closure of complaint were provided to the appellant. This was not a case wherein the respondent did not respond to the RTI Page 5 of 6 application but a case where the grounds for denial of information were incorrect and not well-explained. The detailed written explanations given by the respondent appears to be reasonable and there appears to be no mala fide on part of the respondent. The delay caused in the matter appears to be inadvertent. In absence of any mala fide, there appears to be no appropriate reason for taking penal action against the CPIOs. Therefore, the show cause notice issued to Shri Manoj Kumar Jain, CPIO, is hereby dropped. With the above observation, both the cases are closed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक/Date: 20.07.2023 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत#) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:
SHRI MANOJ KUMAR JAIN THE CPIO BANK OF INDIA STAR HOUSE, H-2, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS MIDDLE CIRCLE, NEW DELHI-110001 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BANK OF INDIA STAR HOUSE, H-2, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS MIDDLE CIRCLE, NEW DELHI-110001 SHRI MANOJ KUMAR JAIN THE CPIO BANK OF INDIA STAR HOUSE, H-2, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS MIDDLE CIRCLE, NEW DELHI-110001 SH. AJAY KUMAR GUPTA Page 6 of 6