Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Kavita Avasthi vs Bank Of Baroda on 11 September, 2018

                                  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/BKOBD/A/2017/150199


Kavita Avasthi                                               ... अपीलकता /Appellant


                                       VERSUS
                                        बनाम


CPIO, Bank of Baroda, Regional                            ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Office, Raebareli.


Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 27.02.2017             FA      : 26.04.2017          SA      : 12.07.2017

CPIO : 27.03.2017            FAO : No Order                Hearing : 07.09.2018


                                      ORDER

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of Baroda, Sultanpur Road, Raebareli seeking information on five points, including, inter-alia,

(i) a certified copy of rules and guidelines governing debits from a savings account and (ii) a certified copy of documents pertaining to the debit of Rs. 2254/- from her account no. 19XXXXXXXXXX23 at Dariapur Branch.

2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO has not provided complete information to her. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information free of cost and to impose a penalty upon the CPIO under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. She also requested the Commission to award compensation to her.

Hearing:

3. The appellant's representative Shri Anoop Kumar Avasthi and the respondent Shri Anand Kumar, Deputy Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, Raebareli attended the hearing through video conferencing

4. The appellant's representative submitted that vide point no. 2 of the RTI application, the appellant had sought copy of the document relating to the wrong debit of Rs. 2254/- from the appellant's bank account. On point nos. 3 and 4 of the RTI application she has sought copies of documents relating to the action taken on her letters dated 20.12.2016 and 24.01.2017. However, the CPIO has not provided copies of the relevant documents as sought vide point nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the RTI application. He further stated that vide point no. 5 of the RTI application the appellant had sought to know the provisions relating to the action taken against bank employees responsible for wrongly debiting an amount from the customers bank account. The CPIO, however, denied the said information under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.

5. The respondent submitted that in response to the RTI application a point wise reply was provided to the appellant vide letter dated 27.03.2017. He stated that on point no. 2 of the RTI application the appellant was informed that the Page 2 of 4 amount of Rs. 2254/- was debited on 23.08.2016 from her bank account as per directions given by MGNREGA office vide letter no. 782/APO/16-17MGNREGA dated 16.08.2016. The appellant was also informed on point nos. 3 and 4 of the RTI application that a letter was written to MGNREGA, however, no reply was received from the department concerned. The respondent further stated that on point no. 5 of the RTI application it was presumed that the appellant has sought information pertaining to the inquiries against the bank employees and hence, the disclosure of information would have impeded the process of investigation, the information sought for was denied under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.

Decision:

6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that a point wise reply was provided to the appellant vide letter dated 27.03.2017. However, the CPIO has not provided copies of relevant documents as sought vide point nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the RTI application. The Commission further observes that the information sought vide point no. 5 of the RTI application was incorrectly denied by invoking exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act as the appellant has sought a copy of the provisions relating to the action taken against the bank employees responsible for wrongly debiting an amount from the customers bank account. The Commission, therefore directs the CPIO to provide information on point nos. 2 to 5 of the RTI application as above said, to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.

7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भाग व) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date 10.09.2018 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोिह ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105682 / [email protected] Addresses of the parties:

1. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, Malikmau Sultanpur Road, Janpad - Raebareli, Uttar Pradesh -229001.

2. Smt. Kavita Avasthi Page 4 of 4