Central Information Commission
R Jai Balaji vs State Bank Of India on 22 June, 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/A/2022/624923
R JAI BALAJI ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
STATE BANK OF INDIA, PREMISES &
ESTATES DEPARTMENT, LOCAL HEAD
OFFICE, RTI CELL, NO. 16 COLLEGE LANE,
NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI-600006,
TAMILNADU. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 21/06/2023
Date of Decision : 21/06/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06/02/2022
CPIO replied on : 09/03/2022
First appeal filed on : 13/03/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 12/04/2022
Second Appeal dated : 23/04/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.02.2022 seeking the following information:1
"a) From the settlement letter No. OAD/153 dated 26.8.2021 I find that GST for the Notice Pay Recovery has been absorbed by the Bank while the GST on IBG Bond has been recovered from the terminal benefits. Please adduce the reason for this quoting relevant sections of GST Act for my guidance.
b) Please provide the cost incurred by the Bank towards training IBOs/JIBOs of 2012 batch in Finacle at Infosys Campus, B'lore. Please note this information is asked as part of 'Tenders awarded & details for statement of transparency in works/contracts awarded on nomination basis' which is being published by the bank on public domain as per CVC guidelines.
c) Recoveries made from gratuity made by Chennai circle from the terminal benefits of employees for the past 3 calendar years.
d) I refer to email dated 08.09.2021 from AGM, PPG stating that unauthorised absence period will not be reckoned for calculation of gratuity. Please clarify me as per what section/regulation of SBIOSR 1992 such period of absence is disregarded for Gratuity calculation?"
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 09.03.2022 stating as under:
"Reply to query No a. GST on Bond has been recovered as per Section 7 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act, 2017) read with Section 9 of CGST Act, 2017.
Reply to query No b. Was transferred to corporate center, Mumbai for direct reply at their end.
Reply to query No c. No such information is maintained at this office. The requested information required collected and collection and collation of the same from various Offices which will disproportionately divert the resources of the Bank. Hence, information is denied under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act 2005.2
Reply to query No d. The period of unauthorized absence cannot be considered as Continuous service for the purpose of calculation Gratuity. Sec 4(1) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 incorporates the concept of gratuity being a reward for long, continuous, and meritorious service. The emphasis there is not on continuity of employment, but on rendering of continuous service. Unauthorized absence from work results in a break of service and not entitled to payment of Gratuity under Sec 4(1) for the years in which the person remained unauthorizedly absent. This is already communicated to you vide email dated 05.10.2021."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.03.2022. FAA's order, dated 12.04.2022, upheld the reply of the CPIO and regarding query no. b, it was informed that the matter has been taken up with corporate center.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Kandappa M, AGM & CPIO along with Jasmine, Chief Manager Law present through video-conference.
The Appellant vide his written submission dated Nil restricted his claim for information against para b only on the following arguments -
"...Query No. (b) - Training Expenses of Indian Based Officers (IBO) Background: During my service with SBI I was given training at Infosys Bangalore.
I sought the cost of training such SBI Officials for 2012 Batch @ Infosys. CPIO Chennai closed the matter stating that SBI Corporate Centre would respond to me directly on this matter. However, till date I have not received any information from Corporate Centre in the matter. Grounds of Appeal:
(i) As per the provisions of RTI Act, if the information sought is to be obtained from other Departments of the same organization, it is the duty of the CPIO to vouch for the same and provide it to the RTI Applicant. In the 3 instant case, CPIO Chennai LHO has referred the matter to Corporate Centre and has not taken any steps to ensure that the applicant is eventually provided with the information. This is a clear dereliction from the duty on the part of CPIO, Chennai LHO.
(ii) Information sought by me is part of disclosures to be made by the Bank as per CVC guidelines Circular No. 04/2021 dated 06.04.2021 and rightfully qualifies as 'Information' within the meaning of section 2(f) of RTI Act.
(iii) Importance of the information sought: SBI has recovered Rs.10.00 lacs from my terminal benefits towards a Bond signed by me in connection with my foreign posting. As per the existing law such bonds are illegal and employer can only recover the training costs only, if at all the bond is enforced properly. Hence, knowing the training cost would enable me to test the reasonableness of the deductions made towards the employment bond from my terminal benefits. It is pertinent to mention here that I had already challenged the employment bond on these grounds. Hence, I have good reason to believe that the SBI officials are deliberately not providing this information so as to obstruct me from seeking legal remedy in the matter.
Query No. (c) - Continuous Service as per SBIOSR [State Bank of India Officers Service Rules] Background: During my service with SBI I was not paid Gratuity for certain period which the bank claimed as 'unauthorized absence'. Through this query I wanted to know the exact section/rule of SBIOSR which states that an official is not eligible for Gratuity for the period he/she remain unauthorizedly absent. CPIO instead of answering this question in terms of SBIOSR has quoted the provisions of Gratuity Act which is not the purpose of my query. Nevertheless, I do not want to press this issue further as the matter is sub-judice before the ALC, Chennai.
However, the fact of the matter remains that the information provided by CPIO is wrong and misleading.
Prayer:
(i) Order CPIO to provide the information sought by me under Query (b)..."4
In response to Appellant's contentions, the CPIO invited attention of the bench towards his written submissions dated 17.06.2023, relevant extracts of which are reproduced below in verbatim -
3. The Appellant, Sri. R. Jai Balaji was the former Chief Manager of the Respondent Bank and was deputed to SBI Retail Banking Branch, Bahrain as Vice President. Disciplinary Proceedings was initiated against the official under SBI OSR ,1992 for certain lapses/irregularities/committed by him while working at SBI Retail Banking Branch, Bahrain. The Appellant was repatriated to India and later posted to SBI, Chennai Circle on 28.05.2015. In the Disciplinary Proceedings initiated against the official, DA imposed penalty of recovery of Rs. 3 lakhs each in two loan accounts where lapses have been attributed to the official.
xxx
13. Regarding the Second Appeal filed by Shri Jai Balaji it is submitted that, the Appellant has approached this Hon'ble Commission misusing the provisions of RTI Act,2005. The Appellant being a responsible senior official of the Bank is aware of the provisions of the Service Rules applicable to him. Even after his separation from Bank, the Appellant continued to file RTI applications, grievance representations and complaint letters to various functionaries of the Bank regarding settlement of his terminal benefits and recovery of penalty amount which was duly considered and replied by the Bank.
14. It is an admitted fact that the Appellant while working at Bahrain on deputation of State Bank of India undertook outside employment and remained in unauthorised absence for many years. Bank initiated action for voluntary cessation of service under SBIOSR,1992 and on cessation of his service settled all eligible terminal benefits to the tune of the Rs 40 lakhs to the Appellant. The Appellant however filed an application before the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Chennai claiming gratuity for the period when he was on unauthorised absence. The said application is pending before ALC, Chennai.
15.As regards the information sought in query No (d), the CPIO has provided available information to the applicant that the gratuity is payable to an employee for his continuous service and unauthorised absence from work results in break in service and such period is not considered for payment of gratuity under Gratuity Act.
516. In this context it is well settled position of law that an employee who absents himself from work is not entitled for any benefits during the period of his absence unless his absence is regularised by a competent authority. In the present case, the Appellant remained unauthorised absent since 25.09.2015 and did not report for duty despite receipt of intimations from Bank as he has undertaken employment in Bahrain. SBI OSR does not contain any provisions to calculate the period of unauthorised absence of an official for the purpose of gratuity. In such event, the reply furnished by CPIO explaining the provisions of Gratuity Act is within the purview of RTI Act. This Hon'ble Commission on various occasions had decided that the CPIO is not required to provide clarifications/ explanation for the reply which is not contemplated as per the objectives of RTI Act.
17. Regarding query No (a), it is submitted that, the Assistant General Manager (OAD) vide letter No OAD/153 dated 26.08.2021 intimated the Appellant about the eligible terminal benefits settled to the official by way of Provident Fund and Gratuity and the appropriation of the bond amount, penalty in view of the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and recovery of payment in lieu of the notice. (Copy enclosed).
18. In the said letter it is clearly mentioned that the GST @ 18% has been appropriated for the Bond amount of Rs 10 lakhs. From the said communication it is already within the knowledge of the Appellant that no GST has been collected by the Bank for the amount adjusted towards notice period. Hence, the application submitted by Shri Jai Balaji seeking specific reply on such information which is already available to him is also another instance of misuse of RTI Act.
19.Further, as regards the GST collected from the official in respect of the Bond amount, considering the grievances raised by the Appellant the matter was taken up with Corporate Centre and with approval for Corporate Centre the GST amount of Rs.1,80,000/- was refunded to the official on 31.10.2022.
20. Hence, it is submitted that the Appellant is not entitled to get any further information as regards his RTI application dated 10.02.2022 and this appeal is liable to be rejected by this Hon'ble Commission imposing cost on the Appellant for misuse of RTI Act...."
6Lastly, the CPIO emphasized on the fact that since the records pertaining to the cost incurred by the Bank towards training IBOs/JIBOs in Finacle at Infosys Campus, Bangalore , as sought for at 'para b' were not maintained in their office; therefore, the RTI Application has been forwarded to the Corporate Centre of SBI, Mumbai. However, at the behest of the Commission, the CPIO agreed to provide relevant available information for 'para b' to the Appellant after accessing the same from the concerned record holder.
Decision:
At the outset, the Commission based on perusal of records and after hearing submissions of both the parties at length notes that the Appellant has raised the grounds for non-receipt of desired information at 'para b' of RTI Application. In this regard, the CPIO categorically stated during hearing that records of information sought on the said point were not kept/maintained in their office; therefore, the RTI Application has been forwarded to their Corporate office.
In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the initial response of the CPIO as the same was found to be in terms of RTI Act.
However, considering the efflux of time and in furtherance of hearing proceedings, the CPIO is directed to provide the relevant available information which may suffices the information sought by the Appellant at 'para b', after procuring the same from their concerned office/department.
The above said information along with a copy of his latest written submission be provided by the CPIO free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 7 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 8