Central Information Commission
Rajesh Kapoor vs State Bank Of India on 21 September, 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/SBIND/A/2018/619182
Shri Rajesh Kapoor ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: State Bank of India,
Bandra. ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 21.11.2017 FA : 27.12.2017 SA : 07.05.2018 CNC: 29.12.2020
CPIO : 03.01.2018 FAO : 20.02.2018 Order :27.04.2020 Hearing: 09.09.2021
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
SHRI SURESH CHANDRA
ORDER
(20.09.2021)
1. The issue under consideration is the complaint of non-compliance (CNC) of CIC's order dated 29.12.2020 in this matter.
2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 21.11.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Bandra, seeking following information:-
(i) Provide a certified copy of the bank's board approved outsourcing policy
(ii) Number of agencies to whom the contract for outsorucing of complaints management has been given Page 1 of 5
(iii) Certified copy of outsoourcing agreements/contracts between SBI and all the outsourced agencies hired for complaints management
(iv) Certified copy of standard operating procedure agreed with the outsourcing agencies, by whatever name called, that lays down the process for handling of complaint from receipt of complaint to closure of complaint and intimation to the customer
(v) List of various stages of complaint when the customer will be informed through SMS/email The CPIO replied on 03.01.2018 replied to the RTI application. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 27.12.2017. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 20.02.2018 Aggrieved by the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 07.05.2018 before the Commission which was under consideration and the Commission vide order dated 27.04.2020 passed the following directions:
"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case hearing both the parties and perusal of records feels, that the reply given by CPIO as well as 1st Appellate Authority were evasive and incomplete. It may be noted that whatever guidelines in pursuance of the RBI policy or any law on the subject, the outsourcing policy within the respondent bank which has been formulated, the customer has a right to know the policy for the sake of transparency and accountability. As regards the agreement or contract between the bank and the contractor they may not provide copies of the contracts entered into with the parties but they may provide standard agreement or a copy of the agreement by deleting party name to maintain privacy. However, guidelines for outsourcing procedure and SOPs for management of complaints has to be in the public domain on the reasons that the same have impact over customers and public as a whole. Accordingly, respondent is directed to re-visit the RTI application and provide the aforementioned Page 2 of 5 information within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With these observations and directions the appeal is disposed of."
3. The appellant vide letter dated 29.12.2020 filed complaint for non-compliance of the order of the Commission dated 27.04.2020.
4. In compliance of the order of the Commission, the CPIO informed vide letter dated 09.03.2021 that they had provided point-wise information in respect o point nos (i), (iii) and (iv) i.e. copy of bank's approved outsourcing policy, copy of outsourcing agreements/contracts between SBI and all the outsourced agencies hired for complaint management and copy of standard operating procedure with the outsourcing agencies.
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Dinesh Kumar, CPIO, State Bank of India, Bandra, attended the hearing through video conference 5.1. The appellant's representative while presenting the case inter alia submitted that few of the documents provided by the respondent were irrelevant. The appellant further submitted that the respondent had only provided copy of the board approved outsourcing policy. However, copies of agreements, copy of standard operating procedure (SOP) was not provided to him. The appellant insisted upon that the SOP applicable in 2017 be supplied to him.
5.2. The respondent while defending their reply dated 09.03.2021 submitted that in pursuance to the orders of the Commission they had provided copy of the standard Agreement after redacting names, details of parties, etc. The respondent further submitted that the appellant did not specify the type of agreement, hence, standard agreement and SOP for complaint management was provided to the appellant. The respondent also explained that the delay in furnishing the information was on account of lack of staff during the pandemic period and that the office was not functioning with full strength.
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observes that the respondent replied and provided partial information vide letter dated 09.03.2021 in pursuance to the Commission's order dated 27.04.2020. It may be noted that the respondent claimed that the appellant did not confirm the type of agreements sought. However, the same was clarified during the Page 3 of 5 course of hearing. Moreover, the very crux or subject matter of the RTI was outsourcing and digging out a technical barrier to deny information on flimsy ground of non- specification of the type of agreement by the appellant was uncalled for. It may not be out of place to mention that it has been held in plethora of cases that people of this country have a right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public way by the public functionaries. The public may not know the improprieties as to whether essential functions were abdicated to an agency in the absence of the information sought and consequently the objective of the RTI would be defeated. In view of the above, the respondent is directed that copies of agreements entered between SBI and outsourcing agency/agencies for complaint management and copy of SOP as applicable in 2017 after redacting contractor's name (if felt necessary), be made available to the appellant within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly, the petition for non- compliance is closed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 20.09.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:
CPIO : STATE BANK OF INDIA CUSTOMER SERVICE DEPTT., CORPORATE CENTRE, 18TH FLOOR, STATE BANK BHAWAN, MADAME CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 021 SH. RAJESH KAPOOR Page 5 of 5