Ramesh Kumar Sehgal vs Canara Bank on 5 October, 2023

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Ramesh Kumar Sehgal vs Canara Bank on 5 October, 2023

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 04.09.2021 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 06.03.2021 and first appeal dated 19.04.2021:-

 The appellant, Ramesh Kumar Sehgal, Ex - Manager, Staff No. 25694, retired compulsory on 26.05.2008. Kindly refer letter no. DCSS F - 82 1164-13 621 2013 dated 06.12.2013 of RTI Section, Circle Office, Delhi, 7th Floor, Ansal Tower,, 38, Nehru Place, New Delhi - 110019. In this letter, it has been informed to him that his gratuity of Rs. 3,50,000/- and Provident Fund (Bank contribution) of Rs. 6,11,884.17 have been adjusted towards loss caused to the Bank.

(i) Copies of vouchers debiting profit and loss account and crediting the loan accounts wherein bank has been caused loss to adjust his gratuity amount of Rs.

3,50,000/-.

Page 1 of 7

(ii) Copies of vouchers debiting profit and loss account and crediting the loan accounts wherein bank has been caused loss to adjust Provident Fund (Bank contribution) of Rs. 6,11,884.17/- payable to him.

(iii) Name of the officer/s who has informed about the loss caused to the Bank and adjustment of his gratuity amount and provident fund (bank contribution) payable to him.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 06.03.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Canara Bank, New Delhi, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 05.05.2021 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 19.04.2021. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 14.06.2021 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 04.09.2021 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 04.09.2021 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 05.05.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:-

"The application has sought voluminous information and the present RTI application is one of the eleven RTI application filed by the applicant. The applicant is permitted to inspect the files on prior intimation."

The FAA vide order dated 14.06.2021upheld the reply of the CPIO.

Hearing on 30.11.2022:

Page 2 of 7

4.1. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Neeraj Kumar Mishra (PIO), Shri Amit Kumar Sharma, Law Officer and Shri Tarun Bhardwaj, Law Officer, Canara Bank, Delhi attended the hearing in person.

4.2. The Commission passed the following directions on 30.01.2023:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the appellant sought information, especially, the quantification of alleged loss suffered by the bank causing forfeiture of Rs. 3,50,000/- gratuity of the appellant along with the bank's contribution of PF Rs. 6,11,884/- which was payable to him. The contention of the appellant was that his gratuity i.e. his own contribution along with bank's contribution was adjusted without serving a show cause notice or without giving chance of fair hearing. The respondent instead of providing the information stated that the applicant has sought voluminous information and the present RTI was one of the 11 RTIs filed by the appellant. The appellant was directed to inspect the files on prior intimation. The statement made by the CPIO is ambiguous, stereo type, evasive and non-specific to the extent that neither the CPIO fixed any time, place nor the officer to whom the appellant had to contact. The perusal of the reply would make it clear that the same was made to delay as the same was not executable. In view of the above, Shri Arvind Kumar, present CPIO and Shri Manoj Kumar, the then CPIO (as on 05.05.2021), are show caused as to why penalty under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act may not be imposed upon each of them for not furnishing the requisite information. The present CPIO is given the responsibility to serve a copy of this order upon the then CPIO and secure his written explanations as well as his attendance on the next date of hearing. All written submissions may be uploaded on the Commission's web portal within 21 days. Meanwhile, the respondent is directed that suitable revised reply/information be made available to the appellant and a copy of the same be uploaded on the Commission's web portal."

Hearing on 18.05.2023:

4.3. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Arvind Kumar (PIO), Advocate Anju Jain and Shri Tarun Bhardwaj, Law Officer, Canara Bank, Delhi attended the hearing in person.

Page 3 of 7

4.4. The Commission passed the following directions on 20.06.2023:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the respondent have not submitted written explanations in response to the show cause notice dated 30.01.2023, till the date of hearing. Although, the respondent admitted that they had not served the appellant with a show cause notice before adjusting the loss allegedly caused to the bank against his gratuity amount, they had not furnished the documents based on which they had assessed the loss caused. Further, the respondent prayed for a final opportunity to defend their case and submit written explanations in response to the show cause notices issued. In view of the above, and in view of the principles of natural justice, the respondent are given a final opportunity to submit written explanations to the show cause notice dated 30.01.2023 as to why penalty under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act may not be imposed upon Shri Arvind Kumar, present CPIO and Shri Manoj Kumar, the then CPIO (as on 05.05.2021 for not furnishing the requisite information. Shri Arvind Kumar, present CPIO is given the responsibility to serve a copy of this order upon the then CPIO and secure his written explanations as well as his attendance on the next date of hearing. All written submissions may be uploaded on the Commission's web portal within 21 days. Meanwhile, the respondent is directed that suitable revised reply/information be made available to the appellant and a copy of the same be uploaded on the Commission's web portal. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned."

Hearing on 31.08.2023

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Ravi Kant Burman, PIO and Divisional Manager and Shri Bhavesh Garg, Law Officer, Canara Bank, New Delhi, attended the hearing in person.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had adjusted his gratuity amount for Rs. 3,50,000/- and Rs. 6,11,884/- towards Provident Fund (bank's contribution) Page 4 of 7 towards alleged loss caused to the bank. However, the respondent had not provided copies of vouchers and other documents adjusted towards aforementioned deductions. He further contended that the recovery from his gratuity and PF (bank's contribution) had taken place without issuing him a show cause notice.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the vouchers for debiting profit and loss account and crediting the loan accounts wherein bank has been caused loss to adjust his gratuity amount, did not exist in the first place. They further submitted that they had admitted and also informed vide their letter dated 28.02.2023 that no show cause notice was given by them before debiting and adjusting his gratuity amount. They had provided revised reply, in comprehensive manner in response to the Commission's order dated 20.06.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:

"1. Applicant has sought information on the premise and assumptions, conjectures and surmises that certain entries have been made in bank's internal accounts.

2. The information sought through RTI by the appellant is not available, since profit and loss account is a periodic statement which shows the net result of business operations for a specified period recording all the expenses incurred and income earned during the reporting period as such separate vouchers for debiting bank's profit and loss account for crediting towards individual loan accounts is not applicable.

Further, we wish to inform you that the appellant has already withdrawn a gratuity of Rs. 3,50,000/- deposited by the bank at the time of filing an appeal before High Court. The statement of bank substantiating the fact is annexed as Annexure-1.

3. Disciplinary Authority took a decision to adjust the gratuity amount in view of the loss caused to the bank.

We are furnishing copy of legal notice dated 21.08.2008 issued to Mr. R.K. Sehgal clearly mentioning in para 3 of notice that the Disciplinary Authority while imposing punishment of compulsory retirement on you ordered to adjust the terminal benefits to be given to you (Gratuity amount) to be adjusted with the loss caused to our client.

Page 5 of 7

The officer's name is the information which is privileged."

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the respondent replied on 25.05.2023, in compliance of the Commission's earlier hearing held on 18.05.2023. It may be noted that the respondent had provided written explanations as well as point-wise reply that since profit and loss account was a periodic statement which shows the net result of business operations for a specified period, hence, recording all the expenses incurred and income earned during the reporting period as such separate vouchers for debiting bank's profit and loss account for crediting towards individual loan accounts was not prepared. Moreover, the respondent had already admitted vide their letter dated 28.02.2023 that no show cause notice was given by them before debiting and adjusting his gratuity amount. That being so, the appellant may seek appropriate relief or remedy from an appropriate forum on the basis of the reply given by the respondent. The response to the RTI applications having been given, no further intervention is required in the matter. In absence of any mala fide on the part of the CPIO, there appears to be no ground to take penal action against the CPIOs. In view of the above, the show cause notices issued to Shri Arvind Kumar, present CPIO and Shri Manoj Kumar, the then CPIO, are hereby dropped. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-


                                                                                सुरेश चं ा)
                                                             (Suresh Chandra) (सु        ा
                                                                             सूचना आयु )
                                                  Information Commissioner (सू
                                                                    दनांक/Date:05.10.2023
Authenticated true copy

R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)




                                                                                   Page 6 of 7
 Addresses of the parties:
THE CPIO:
Canara Bank
Circle Office, 7th Floor, Ansal Tower,
38, Nehru Place, New Delhi - 110019
(present CPIO is requested to serve the
Copy of the order to the then CPIO
Shri Manoj Kumar, (as on 05.05.2021)
and Shri Arvind Kumar, present CPIO
And secure written explanations)

THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY
Canara Bank Circle Office, 7th Floor,
Ansal Tower, 38, Nehru Place,
New Delhi - 110019

Shri Shri Arvind Kumar,
present CPIO
Canara Bank
Circle Office, 7th Floor, Ansal Tower,
38, Nehru Place, New Delhi - 110019

The CPIO
Shri Manoj Kumar,
(for serving to the then CPIO
As on 5.5.2021)
Canara Bank Circle Office,
7th Floor, Ansal Tower,
38, Nehru Place,
New Delhi - 110019

SH. RAMESH KUMAR SEHGAL




                                          Page 7 of 7

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission