Rajesh Manikchand Jain vs Bank Of Maharashtra on 4 November, 2022

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Rajesh Manikchand Jain vs Bank Of Maharashtra on 4 November, 2022

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 17.09.2020 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 15.07.2020 and first appeal dated 13.08.2020:-

(i) With reference to reply of CPIO no. AX1/CPIO/RTI/2020-21/20093 dated 14.07.2020 of RTI no. BOMAH/R/E/20/00255 provide date of information to him regarding composite case in case of charge sheet no. AX1/ST/DM/E-

512/173/2015-16 dated 25.05.2015 issued by Chairman & Managing Director as Disciplinary Authority.

(ii) With reference to reply of point no. 2 of the above said RTI, provide rule/provision of BOMOE (D&A) Regulation/OSR regarding change of disciplinary authority in Page 1 of 4 intervening period in case of charge sheet no. AX1/ST/DM/E-512/173/2015-16 dated 25.05.2015, due to demotion of scale VII officer to Scale V.

(iii) Provide rule/provision of BOMOE (D&A) Regulation/OSR regarding common inquiry proceedings of all officers in case of composite case of charge sheet no. AX1/ST/DM/E-512/173/2015-16 dated 25.05.2015 to him.

(iv) Certified copy of the processing of this RTI application.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 15.07.2020 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of Maharashtra, Pune, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 10.08.2020 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 13.08.2020. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 08.09.2020 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 17.09.2020 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 17.09.2020 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 10.08.2020 and the same is reproduced as under:-

(i) "There is no provision in Bank of Maharashtra Officer Employee (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 for informing the Charge Sheeted Officer Employee about the composite case.

(ii) Regulation 5 of Bank of Maharashtra Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 provide for the appointment of Disciplinary Authority.

(iii) As per Regulation 10 of Bank of Maharashtra Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976, common proceedings can be held where two or more officer employees are concerned in the case. Disciplinary Authority has discretion to direct for common proceedings. In respect of case pertaining to charge sheet no. AX1/ST/DM/E-512/173/2015-16 dated 25.05.2015, no such order was issued by the Disciplinary Authority.

Page 2 of 4

(iv) This letter is reply to RTI application."

The FAA vide order dated 08.09.2020 upheld the reply of the CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Gaurav Tyagi, CPIO, Bank of Maharashtra, Pune attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the information provided by the respondent was false and misleading. He contended that the respondent bank had not informed him that the charge sheet served upon him was not a composite one.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had furnished point-wise information to the appellant vide letter dated 10.08.2020 and that there was no provision as per their banking norms to inform the charged official about the nature of charge sheet. However, they admitted that a composite charge sheet was served upon 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 reply given by the respondent in respect of point no. (i) of the RTI application was evasive. However, during the course of hearing, the respondent admitted that a composite charge sheet was served upon the appellant. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to re-visit point no. (i) of the RTI application and give revised information to the appellant within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. However, no intervention is called for in respect of the remaining points of the RTI application. With these observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

                                                                                   सुरेश चं ा)
                                                                 (Suresh Chandra) (सु       ा
                                                    Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु त)
                                                                         दनांक/Date: 01.11.2022
Authenticated true copy

R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मत
                                 ू )


                                                                                      Page 3 of 4
 Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)
Addresses of the parties:
The CPIO
Bank of Maharashtra
Head Office 'Lokmangal'
1501, Shivajinagar
Pune, Maharashtra - 411005

First Appellate Authority
Bank of Maharashtra
Yashomangal', 1183/A.F.C. Road
Shivajinagar, Pune - 411005

Rajesh Manikchand Jain




                                 Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission