Central Information Commission
Pooja V Shah vs Bank Of India on 19 December, 2023
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/BKOIN/A/2021/114765
Pooja V Shah ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Bank of India,
Mumbai ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 09.10.2020 FA : 24.11.2020 SA : 05.04.2021
CPIO : 13.11.2020 FAO : 23.12.2020 Hearing : 14.12.2023
Date of Decision: 15.12.2023
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.10.2020 seeking the following information:-
(i) "Ref. No of this RTI as given in para 3 above in this RTI along with the date of receiving it. Also name, designation, email ID and contact No of present CPIO.
(ii) Provide name, designation, address including email ID of the Public Authority of Bank of India who was required to deduct the above amount from the salary/pension of the CPIOs as ordered by the Hon'ble Commission.Page 1 of 8
(iii) Provide certified copy of the document showing that the above amount was deducted from the salary/pension of the concerned CPIO as ordered by the Hon'ble Commission.
(iv) Provide information on the date when the above penalty amount has been sent to the Hon'ble Commission along with the postal receipt showing the date of posing it to the Hon'ble Commission in compliance of the above order.
(v) Proved inspection of the above 2 case files (containing all documents related to these case files whether in physical form or in computer, starting from the RTI application till compliance of the orders of the Hon'ble Commission) for which orders were passed on the same date of 15.06.2020 for the same issue of NO RESPONSE to RTIs.
(vi) I am authorizing my uncle Shri Damani M N to do the inspection of the above files on by behalf. Kindly allow him to take notes or certified copies of the documents, or record u/s-2(j) of the RTI Act. As your legal officer Shri Anirudha Deshpande is in Malad Branch and we are staying at Kandivali, it will be much convenient for us to visit your Malad Branch for inspection.
Hence, kindly allow us to take inspection of the above case files at your Malad Branch and oblige.
(vii) Provide information on all the cases in which Penalty has been imposed on CPIOs of Bank of India by the Hon'ble CIC.
(viii) Complete information about putting the above sought information on the website of the bank as required u/s-4(1) of the RTI Act. (Please see para below for explanation).
(ix) Uploading of the RTI and its response on the website : Provide information "in how many days present RTI and its response are uploaded on your website, also date from which RTI's and appeals received and their responses are Page 2 of 8 uploaded on your website in general as required u/s4(1) as mandated by the order of the Honorable Commission. See para 15 on explanation.
(x) if there is complete absence of any steps taken by BOI to upload the RTI applications first appeals received and their responses by BOI as per the order of the Honorable CIC dtd. 13.11.2019 of the bank, kindly specifically mention about the same.
(xi) Provide name, designation, address and email ID of the officers who were required to implement the order of the Honorable CIC dtd 13.11.2019 detailed in para 15 below.
(xii) Provide certified copies of the correspondence made by the PIO with the competent authority in BOI who was required to implement the above order of the Honourable ClC. (please see Judgment of the Delhi High Court in this regard as give in para 17 under the explanation to assist PIO.)"
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 13.11.2020 and the same is reproduced as under:-.
"i) The information pertains to your own RTI hence the same cannot be brought under definition "information" as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Hence, the information sought is cannot be provided. The details of present CPIO is as under; Name : Makhan Gopal Agrawal Designation :
Assistant General Manager Email lD : xxxxxx.in Contact No : xxxxxx790
ii) Please note that we are holding officer's information, name designation and al! in a fiduciary capacity, being an employer which need not be disclosed to any person as it fall under exemption of S.8(1Xi) of RTI act.
iii) The order has been complied with and same has been advised to the Hon'ble ClC Page 3 of 8
iv) The order has been complied with and same has been advised to the Hon'ble CIC. Branch has sent through speed post to Hon'ble Commission on 21.08.2020.
v) The inspections of case files can not be permitted to third party as the matter is sub judice before Hon'ble DRT Mumbai
vi) The inspections of case files cannot be permitted to third party as the matter is sub judice before Hon'ble DRT Mumbai
vii) The information sought cannot be provided under RTI.
viii) Please note that we are not uploading the information sought in RTI under reference on the website. However, the information which is required u/s-
4(1) of the RTI act is being uploaded.
ix) Please note that we are not uploading the information sought in RTI Under reference on the website. However, the information which is required u/s- 4(1) of the RTI act is being uploaded.
x) There is no non-compliance from the bank's part.
xi) Please not that we are holding officer's information, name designation and all in a fiduciary capacity, being an employer which need not be disclosed to any person as it falls under the exemption of S.8(1)(j) of RTI act.
xii) There is no such correspondence is made as there is no pendency from bank's part for implementing the order of the Hon'ble CIC. The order of the CIC is not implemented due to yourself
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.11.2020 alleging that the reply given was false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 23.12.2020upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 4 of 8Hearing on 01.12.2022
5. The Appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Prashant Kulkarni, Assistant General Manager & CPIO, Bank of India, Mumbai, attended the hearing through video conference.
5.1. The Commission has passed the following observations and directions on 05.12.2022:
"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that during the course of hearing, the respondent submitted that subsequently they had provided an opportunity of inspection in response to point no. (iii) of RTI Application, but the applicant had not visited the office for inspection. In this regard, the Commission is of the view that since no documentary proof showing that the inspection of relevant records had been provided to the applicant, was placed on records, the Commission advised the respondent to upload copy of such communication on the portal of Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission observes that the applicant filed a letter before the Commission stating that she received appointment letter from Delhi State Legal Service Authority appointing Adv. Rashmi Maurya to represent the instant case. But, Adv. Rashmi Maurya neither appeared during the hearing nor filed any written submissions seeking exemption from personal appearance. In these circumstances, it is difficult to dispose of the instant matter; therefore, the Commission deems it fit to adjourn the present matter in the interest of justice. The registry of this bench is directed to issue fresh notice of hearing to both the parties concerned. The notice of hearing may also be served to the Counsel of applicant. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned."
Hearing on 21.03.2023
6. The Appellant's advocate Ms. Rashmi Maurya attended the hearing in person and on behalf of the respondent Sh. Anup Kumar Sharma, Asstt. General Manager & CPIO, Bank of India, Mumbai attended the hearing through video conference.
Page 5 of 86.1. The Commission passed the following directions on 05.04.2023:
"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, noted that Shri Anup Kumar Sharma had recently joined the bank as CPIO and he was not aware of the complete facts of the case. Therefore, he sought some time to go through compete files of Appellant/Appellant to enable him to present the case properly. In view of the principle of natural justice, the respondent is given a final opportunity to defend the case. Accordingly, the complaint is adjourned."
Hearing on 27.07.2023
7. The Commission passed the following directions on 25.10.2023:
"In this case, hearing had taken place on 27.07.2023. But due to administrative, technical reasons, the arguments could not be drawn conclusively to facilitate an equitable decision. Hence, it is decided to hear the case afresh and the case is accordingly adjourned."
Hearing on 14.12.2023:
8. The Appellant's advocate Ms. Rashmi Maurya attended the hearing in person and on behalf of the respondent Sh. Anup Kumar Sharma, Asstt. General Manager & CPIO, Bank of India, Mumbai, attended the hearing through video conference.
9. The Appellant's Advocate (assigned by Delhi State Legal Services Authority upon Appellant's request) submitted that she had no instructions or communication from the Appellant regarding the cases listed for hearing before the Commission. She requested the Commission to take into consideration the contents and grounds raised in the complaint. Despite being given multiple opportunities, she reiterated that the Appellant had not contacted her and she was appearing before the Commission to represent Ms. Pooja V. Shah in pursuance to the information received from Delhi State Legal Services Authority.
10. The respondent while defending their case submitted that they had provided point- wise reply to the appellant vide letter dated 13.11.2020. Besides, they had offered Page 6 of 8 multiple inspections to the appellant with respect to the documents relation to her previous RTI application filed at their Branch Office on 16.12.2022, 29.03.2023 and 11.04.2023 and the appellant had also obtained certified copies of documents selected by her during the inspection. Further, the appellant had raised the issue of delay in responding to the RTI application. They clarified that the delay caused in the matter was on account of COVID-19 restrictions and due to shortage of staff in their Branch.
11. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observes that appropriate reply was given by the CPIO on 13.11.2020. With respect to the delay caused in responding to the RTI application, the CPIO explained that the same was caused on account of COVID-19 restrictions and due to shortage of staff in their Branch. That being so, there appears to be no mala fide on the part of the CPIO. Keeping in view the above, and in absence of the appellant to plead her case or any written objections thereof, the averments made by the respondent during the course of hearing were taken on record. The Commission also takes serious note of the absence of the appellant (Ms. Pooja V. Shah) despite notices having been duly served upon her for all the four hearings scheduled on 01.12.2022, 21.03.2023, 27.07.2023 and 14.12.2023. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 15.12.2023
Authenticated true copy
Suman Bala
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Page 7 of 8
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
Bank OF India RTI Cell,
Legal Department, 4th Floor,
EAST Wing, Star House,
C-5, G-Block,Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra(EAST), Mumbai-400051
2. The FAA
Bank OF India RTI Cell,
Legal Department, 4th Floor,
EAST Wing, Star House, C-5,
G-Block,Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra(EAST), Mumbai-400051
3. Adv. Rashmi Maurya
4. Ms Pooja V Shah
Page 8 of 8