Ajay Jain vs Union Bank Of India on 9 September, 2021

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Ajay Jain vs Union Bank Of India on 9 September, 2021

1. The appellant filed the above mentioned two appeals against the CPIO, Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Agra, with respect to two RTI applications. Both the appeals are clubbed together for hearing and disposal to avoid multiplicity of proceedings:

File No. CIC/UBIND/A/2019/639368 1.1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 29.04.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 23.01.2019 and first appeal dated 24.02.2019:-

Page 1 of 5

(i) Debit voucher and bank advise dated 17.04.2018 of Rs. 404212 corresponding to penal interest recovered on account of non-submission of stock statements from the account of Enkay Exports India Limited, Agra without any prior intimation.

(ii) Schedule of charges accepted and countersigned by Enkay Exports India Limited, Agra which is the integral part of sanction letter dated 27.02.2017 valid till 26.02.2018 for the non-compliances mentioned therein.

File No. CIC/UBIND/A/2019/639370 1.2 The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 14.07.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 22.02.2019 and first appeal dated 24.02.2019:-

 Union bank of India main branch Agra 282002 customer ID No. 131018790 current account no. 305601010015018 EPC account No. *****************19 belonging to Enkay Exports India Limited Agra.

 Please furnish detailed computation or bill including GST with narration of penalty amount aggregating Rs. 2510396/- corresponding to the alleged non compliances and irregularities as per letter your dated 16.10.18 read with sanction letter dated 27.02.17 valid till 26.02.18 and letter dated 10.05.18.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed applications dated 23.01.2019 &22.02.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Union Bank of India, Agra, Uttar Pradesh, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 28.02.2019 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's reply, the appellant filed first appeal dated 24.02.2019 &28.02.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 29.03.2019 &30.03.2019 disposed of the first appeal. In compliance with the FAA's order, the CPIO vide letter dated 22.04.2019 provided revised reply to the appellant.

Page 2 of 5

Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 29.04.2019 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 29.04.2019 inter alia on the grounds that information sought was not provided by the respondent. 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 for non-compliance of the provisions of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 28.02.2019 denied the information under section 8 (1)

(j) of the RTI Act. The FAA vide his order dated 30.03.2019 advised CPIO to take cognizance of the email dated 19.03.2019 of the ACPIO, and further may seek the other relevant documents/information, if any so required, from the concerned ACPIO, Agra Main Branch and should serve a suitable reply under the rules and guidelines of the RTI Act within three weeks. In compliance of the FAA's order, the CPIO vide letter dated 22.04.2019 provided revised point-wise reply/information to the appellant.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Vikas Vineet, Regional Head and CPIO and Shri Amit Kumar Saran, Senior Manager(Legal), Union Bank of India, Agra, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had filed multiple RTI applications regarding penal interest charged in the account. In this regard, they had provided all the information including reasons for charging penal interest etc. Besides, the appellant had admitted his lapse and non-compliance of terms and conditions of credit card facilities sanctioned by the bank. They further informed that the appellant had been filing frivolous application to harass the bank officials and settle his personal score.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that the respondent had perfunctorily dealt with the matter. The FAA also vide order dated 28.2.2019 had failed to mention the date in its order. The officers who attended the hearing could not efficiently and Page 3 of 5 effectively present the case and thus failed to assist the Commission. It appears that the officers were complacent and took lackadaisical approach while handling the RTI matter including the presentation before the Commission. They are warned to be more cautious in future and the senior officers in line may take note of the above observations and sensitize their officers to be careful in future while dealing with RTI applications and Commission. Perusal of the relevant record reveals that initially the CPIO denied the information under provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The FAA's while allowing the first appeal inter alia observed that section 8(1) (j) invoked by the CPIO was not maintainable in the matter and directed the CPIO to re-visit the RTI application in terms of the FAA's order. Perusal of the CPIO's reply dated 22.04.2019 given in compliance of the order of the FAA reveals that the reply given was ambiguous and more in the nature of shifting the burden or blame on the appellant and failed to give satisfactory reply. In view of this, the respondent is directed to provide the information i.e. computation or bill including GST with narration of penalty amount aggregating of Rs. 25,10,396/- within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With these observations and directions, both the appeals are disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक/Date: 09.09.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत#) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO:

UNION BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE,AGRA, 13,M.G.ROAD,AGRA-282001,OPPOSITE COLLECTORATE HOUSE, AGRA (U.P.) - 282 001 Page 4 of 5 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, UNIONBANK OF INDIA, VIBHUTI KHAND,NEAR MANTRI AWAS, GOMTINAGAR, LUCKNOW -226 010 AJAY JAIN Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission