Central Information Commission
Gugulothu Srinivas vs State Bank Of India on 3 August, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/SBIND/C/2022/617644
Gugulothu Srinivas ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
State Bank Of India , RBO-IV
Siddipet Koti, AO Hyderabad
Siddipet -500095. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02/08/2023
Date of Decision : 02/08/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 11/10/2021
CPIO replied on : 18/11/2021 & 20/11/2021
First appeal filed on : 20/11/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 10/12/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 25/03/2022
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 11.10.2021 seeking the following information:1
"The action taken on the complaint to the General Manager regarding Crime No 199/2020 filed in Jangaon police station against Gugulothu Narender Sic kishan Caste: Lambada (ST), Present Working in Warangal Region IV. Warangal city 506002 We have provided all necessary Documents like F Copy & Ration Card of Candidate & all Necessary Documents attached by Advocate (Legal Notice) and provided to you by Registered post.
1. Please provide Action taken Report & Application & Application attached Documents at the time of Pos complaint through Advocate RN1932727521N Provided on 28 07 2020 to General Manager (Principal Nodal Officer), SBI, State bank bhawan , 11 th floor , madam cama road , Mumbai , 400021
2. Please provide Action taken Report & Application & Application attached Documents at the time of Post complaint through RN1932728681N Provided on 28 07 2020 to General Manager (Network II) Local Head Office, State Bank of India, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad. 2 Please Provide Me Action Taken reports o' Departmental Enquiry Process
3. Please Provide me All necessary Documents of Department Enquiry Process which were occurred on Gugulothu Narender S/o Kishan by Above Complaint. I want to seek This information from SBI Chanman Please provide me Two sets of Attested & Office seal for providing Documents at High court of Telangana Against Accused Al Gugulothu Narender S/o Kishan in FIR & Charge Sheet."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 18.11.2021 stating as under:
"With reference to your RTI application dated 11.10.2021 received by us on 08.11.2021 through our RTI Department to provide information regarding Query No. 1 A, PARTIALLY (2&3), under the provisions of the RTI Act 2005.
As regards the information sought by you at Sr. No. 01 (A), 2 & 3, we advise the information is the third-party information and hence the same cannot be provided under Section 8(j) of the RTI Act ..."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 20.11.2021 stating as under:
2"The bank has examined the issue raised in the complaint and it was found that the allegations raised against the employee relates to his personal/family dispute which falls outside the purview of his employment with bank. Hence, the necessity of taking departmental action against the concerned employee does not arise at present."
Being dissatisfied, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 20.11.2021. FAA's order dated 10.12.2021, directed the CPIO & DGM (Estate)to resend the copy of the reply dated 18.11.2021 to the Appellant.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant complaint.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: Arun Jyoti, AGM & CPIO present through audio-conference.
The Complainant stated that he is aggrieved with the fact that the information furnished by the CPIO is false and misleading.
The written submission filed by the CPIO prior to hearing is taken on record.
The CPIO submitted that the genesis of instant case is a family discord between the complainant and the third party Guguloth Narendra (who is working in the Warangal branch of SBI).For the said dispute, the Complainant has filed a FIR and approached SBI,PMO and other authorities by filing multiple complaints. As far as information sought is concerned, it was already intimated to the Complainant that the allegations raised against the employee relates to his personal/family dispute which falls outside the purview of his employment with bank. Hence, the necessity of taking departmental action against the concerned employee does not arise at present.
Decision:3
The Commission based upon a perusal of records finds no scope of action in the matter with respect to the reply and as sequel to it further clarifications provided by the CPIO during hearing as the same were found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
Further, the instant Complaint has no merit as regards to any penal action to be initiated against the CPIO in the absence of any malafide intent on their part . In this regard, the attention of the Complainant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors. v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
Additionally, the following observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors. WP(C) 3114/2007 are pertinent in this matter:
"17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr. WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009 had held as under:
4"....Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely.
xxx ......The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it."
Nonetheless, in pursuance to clause 4 of hearing notice, the CPIO is directed to share a copy of her latest written submissions free of cost with the Complainant immediately upon receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5