V V Subba Rao vs Bank Of India on 31 March, 2022

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

V V Subba Rao vs Bank Of India on 31 March, 2022

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 07.07.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through the RTI application dated 27.01.2019 and first appeal dated 03.03.2019:-

"Based on the Branch Circulars NO 104/50 dated 19-07-2010, provide the following information under RTI Act:

(i) Provide the definition of FOUR EYE PRICIPAL mentioned in CREC functions.

Page 1 of 12

(ii) Provide the meaning of quorum as per the said Branch Circular 106/38 dated 21- 05-2012 and as per English dictionary and business dictionary.

(iii) The business dictionary define the quorum as: Quote: The minimum number of eligible persons who must be present at a meeting before any official business may be transacted or a decision taken therein becomes legally binding. We could not hold the meeting until the quorum was in attendance, as that was the requirement before the meeting could handle any official business. Unquote. Provide the extant guidelines which permitted that the same definition is NOT applicable to the quorum of CREC, since, the CREC meeting which had cleared the proposal for sanction of WHR loan exposure of March, 2013 for Rs 10 crores, lacks quorum due to non-inclusion of the AGM/CM as one of the member of the meeting and rendered the CREC recommendations as legally VOID and also the sanction of the due diligence approval and maximum cap approval also as VOID as the same was based on CREC clearance.

(iv) Provide the name of the officials who had vetted the risk rating -(official in-

charge of Zonal Risk Management Cell) in all the proposals of M/s Sri Hari Hara Cold Storage and M/s Chemol Technologies India Pvt., Ltd., as there were no balance sheets, no income tax returns and no capital in all the proposals referred in the captioned subject. (The same has to be looked into by special auditors and internal auditors while performing their job role).

(v) Provide the extant guidelines which permit the approval of due diligence (vide sanction proposal of April 2012) without Balance, sheets, without income tax returns and without credit rating, since Mr. Dasaratha Ramaiah was in the business of Class I contractor and undertaking government contracts and enjoying clean over draft facility for contracts activity since March, 2011 and Term Loan from June 2011. (The same has to be looked into by special auditors and internal auditors while performing their job role).

Page 2 of 12

(vi) Provide the extant guidelines which permits Zonal Manager/ZLCC to approve of maximum cap approval against the WHRs issued by M/s Sri Hari Hara Cold Storage, without Balance Sheets, Income Tax Returns, Credit Rating, pre sanction inspection reports in April 2012 and March 2013?. ( The same has to be looked into by special auditors and internal auditors while performing their job role)

(vii) Provide the documentary evidences based on which the CREC and ZLCC had sanctioned proposal of March 2013 for Rs 10 crores ignoring the observations of Sanctioning Authority incorporated Sanctioned proposal of April 2012 which had clearly mentioned in page 3 under the head recommendations para 3 Quote:

Against the requirement of Rs 643 lakhs, the branch proposes for outlay of Rs 600 lakhs . But we propose to consider for Rs 350 lakhs only as the unit is new one and yet to prove itself. Unquote A/c Shri Hari Hara Cold Storage. (The same has to be looked into by special auditors and internal auditors while performing their job role).

(viii) Provide the legal validity of the sanction of Rs 10 Crores WHR exposure since the mandatory CREC clearance lacks the quorum due to non-induction of the Scale V and or Scale IV officer. A/c of M/s Sri Hari Hara Cold Storage. (The same has to be looked into by special auditors and internal auditors while performing their job role).

(ix) Provide the extant guidelines of Audit Department which had exempted the Internal Auditors who had conducted internal audit in November to 5th December, 2013 to ignore the auditors observations of 2012 and compliance/noncompliance of the same in their report along with the observations of Credit Inspection Report of 21-10-2013 conducted by Shri Kavi Subramanyam of the then Branch Head of Cherukupalli Branch. ( The same has to be looked into by special auditors and internal auditors while performing their job role)

(x) Provide the actual date of NPA of the WHR loan disbursements of 31st March, 2013 and WHR loan sanctioned in April 2012 and disbursed in May to September Page 3 of 12 2012, as per IRAC norms, in view of the fact that the sanction of Rs 10 crores proposal has no legal binding and void in view of non-inclusion of Scale V and Scale IV officer as one of the members and lacks quorum. Hence, the proposal of 2012 was NPA after 90 days from the date of completion of one year and 90 days from the date of withdrawal of the facility on 13-05-2013 i.e. 11th and no validity for the additional limits disbursed on 31-03-2013 all the 13 loan accounts were in NPA status on 30-06- 2013.A/c of M/s Sri Hari Hara Cold Storage. (The same has to be looked into by special auditors and internal auditors while performing their job role and report it in their reports.)

(xi) Provide the extant guidelines which permitted the internal auditors of Nov-

December 2013 not to report the NPA status of the account in their internal audit report? A/c Sri Hari Hara Cold Storage

(xii) Provide the extant guidelines of Audit Department with regard to Approval of Special Observations letter by DGM SAZO before issue of the SOL to Branch on the day of exit meeting. A/c Sri Hari Hara Cold Storage

(xiii) Provide the extant guidelines of Audit Department with regard to Approval of Special Audit Report by DGM SZAO before forwarding the same to HO I&A; GM NBG South, and ZO AP Zone. A/c Sri Hari Hara Cold Storage

(xiv) Provide the copy of the confidential information submitted by the team leader of the Audit team that had conducted the internal audit in November-December, 2013. A/c Sri Hari Hara Cold Storage and not visiting M/s Nakkala Leela Kumari whose account was used to siphon of the major portion of WHR loan disbursements

(xv) Provide the extant special audit guidelines which permitted the special auditors not to report the irregularities in sanction in general and specifically discussed above (lapses in CREC clearance and ignoring the sanctioning authority observations in 2012 for reducing the limit to Rs 350 lakhs and not ensuing compliance with of the above observation) in their special audit report?

Page 4 of 12

(xvi) Provide the extant guidelines and directions of Chief of Southern Zonal Audit Office not to visit M/s Nakkala Leela Kumari and take her written statement by Special Auditors?

(xvii) Provide the extant guidelines which permitted the special auditors to hand over the stock register which was handed over to them by the then BDM to the cold storage unit instead of returning the same to BDM office and or handing over the same to Southern Zonal Audit Office (xviii) Provide the photo copy of the stock register, copies of which were attached by special auditors along with their reports?

(xix) Provide the copy of the special letter NO 7 dated 05/26-12-2013 and Special Audit Report dated 21-12-2013 along with the covering letter of the team leader and covering letter of head of SZAO forwarding the same to AP Zonal Office and NBG South.

(xx) Provide the copy of the Audit Report with regard to non-induction of capital, in the account M/s Chemol Technologies India Pvt., Ltd., by internal auditors during the audit conducted by them in 2014-2015-2016-2017 and 2018 calendars years, as the share application money was not routed through their account with Bank of India, Ongole Branch.

(xxi) Provide copy of the internal audit report of 2012 and 2013 of WHR loans of Ongole Branch which were sanctioned without any approval from Zonal Manager and without any mortgage of properties and all the loans are accommodative. In 2012 the internal auditors left the branch after opening with the reasons that there were no proposals and all the documents were unfilled (xxii) Provide the copy of the Audit Report disclosing the major lapses in sanction of SHG loans and other SME loans, Education loans by Mr. K Koteswara Rao at Arundalpet Branch and his successor in 2017 and 2018?

Page 5 of 12

(xxiii) Provide the action taken against the internal auditors for suppressing the irregularities in sanction of SHG loans and other SME and Education loans by Mr. K Kotewara Rao and his successor at Arundalpet Branch. (xxiv) Provide the internal auditors observations in the account M/s S V Plastics which was sanctioned by Chief Manager Tirupathi for Vishnunivasam Branch which is totally against the delegation of powers and prove the criminal conspiracy hatched by Tirupathi Branch Chief Manager and Officer-in-charge of CPC Tirupati and the SZLCC Hyderabad and or SZLCC AP Zone which had cleared the proposal under PSRS without any adverse remarks (xxv) Provide the extant guidelines which empower the Trupathi Branch Chief Manager to sanction term loan and working capital limits to Vishnunivasam Branch (xxvi) Provide the extant guidelines and delegation of authority to AMO's to sanction Agricultural finance to its branches under his operational area. (xxvii) Provide copy of the delegation of powers to AMOs duly approved by Bank's board.

Provide the name of the official -in-charge of Zonal Risk Management Cell which had vetted the risk rating and also the names of the CREC members in

(a) For Mr. Chandu Dasaratha Ramaiah in March 2011 clean over draft facility of Rs 50 lakhs.

(b) For M/s Sri Hari Hara Cold Storage in June 2011 for Term Loan of Rs 350 lakhs.

(d) For WHR loans sanctioned in March, 2013 for Rs 10 crores

(e) For rejection of M/s Sri Hari Hara Vinayaka Cold Storage Term Loan

(f) For M/s Chemol Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., of Ongole Branch.

Prevention of frauds: BC NO 104/50 dated 19-07-2010 scrutinized by internal auditors and other executives.

(i) Provide the members of the Zonal Task Force on Frauds during 2012-2013-2014 and 2015 calendar years Page 6 of 12

(ii) Provide the copy of the minutes of minutes of Zonal Task Force which had discussed about the frauds

(iii) M/s Sri Hari Hara Cold storage during June 2013 and December, 2015 in general and particularly about the oral complaints of 13 borrowers who were financed in March, 2013 to Mr Pilli Venkateswarlu

(iv) M/s Sri Chemol Technologies India Pvt., Ltd., Ongole Branch in 2015;2016;2017 and 2018.

(v) SHG Fraud at Arundalpet Branch after relieving of Mr. K Koteswara Rao and till date, covering checking of transfer scroll and checking physical vouchers and loan disbursement including the financial year 2018 and 2019

(vi) Provide the extant guidelines which permitted the internal auditors not to scrutinize the minutes of the branch as per BC NO 105/50 dated 19-07-2010 at Arundalpet, Chenchupeta, Gandhinagar, Macherla, Nandyala, Ongole, Tirupathi, Vishnunivasam, Visakhapatnam Main Branch (M/s Facor Alloys two SBLOCs and M/s S K Sarawagi Term Loan account of Rs 40 crores disbursed in December, 2013 and packing credit account), and other branches while conducting the internal audit and facilitated the frauds in all these branches.

(vii) Provide the information whether the competent authority had taken the exit steps and file the suit in DRT in the account M/s FACOR Alloys Ltd (with regard to devolvement of SBLOC by Jersey Branch) immediately after its devolvement the filing of petition with NCLT in FACOR Steels Ltd., and Facor Alloys Corporation Kolkata will be applicable to the FACOR Alloys over dues?

(viii) Provide the internal auditors observations with regard to Tie UP loans sanctioned by various branches in Andhra Pradesh Zone for 2006-07 sugar season for an aggregate amount of Rs 95 crores when the earlier tie up loan over dues were in existence?

Page 7 of 12

(ix) Provide the copies of the 16 special letters issued by internal auditors at Dommeru Branch during 2017 about the finance made at Dommeru Branch including M/s Jepore Sugar Company Tie Up loans?

(x) Provide the extant guidelines which permit the Tie Up loans sanctioned by AP Zonal Office for extending crop loans through intermediators for the sugar season 2006-07 are eligible for Debt Relief claim as certified by Bank of India without ensuring extending of the debt relief to the farmers by the intermediate?"

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 27.01.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of India, Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 04.02.2019 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 03.03.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 03.04.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 07.07.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 07.07.2019 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 04.02.2019 that the appellant used to raise several issues from the replies given and uses them as basis for further RTI applications and sought related documents without any reasons and logic. He further stated that the appellant had again sought more or less similar information hence they expressed their inability to provide the information. The CPIO also relied on the observations made by the Commission in File No. CIC/AD/A/2013/001326-SA, CIC/SG/C/2011/000760, CIC/SM/A/2011/00926/SG etc. The FAA vide order dated 08.04.2019 agreed with the views taken by the CPIO.

Page 8 of 12

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri N. Jejeswara Rao, CPIO & Shri Venkata Kaleshwar Rao, Chief Manager (Law), Bank of India, Vishakhapatnam attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that information sought was not provided by the respondent till the date of hearing. He further submitted that he was dealt with departmentally and subsequently dismissed from service of the bank. He stated that complete information/documents were not provided by the bank hence he could not defend the case properly.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant filed RTI application containing 6 pages having more than 40 multiple points wherein he had sought the information relating to several accounts particularly in the account of M/s Hari Hara Cold Storage of Chenchupeta Branch presently falling under Vijayawada Zone. They stated that as on the date of RTI application in question, the appellant had sought similar information regarding the account of M/s Sri Hari Hara Cold Storage from the respondent bank by submission of 30 RTI applications and the same were replied by the then CPIO of Visakhapatnam Zone in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. They further submitted that the then CPIO had informed the appellant in the reply that no public interest was involved and the RTI applications were repetitive on similar subject, hence his RTI request was rejected. The respondent informed that the applicant was an ex-employee of the respondent Bank who was dismissed from service for the misconduct committed by him during his tenure from 25.07.2011 to 11.06.2014 as Business Development Manager of bank at Guntur center, Andhra Pradesh Zone. During the appellant's tenure, he had dealt with account of M/s Sri Hari Hara Cold Storage and he had acted in manner grossly inimical to the interest of bank. However, the appellant's punishment was subsequently modified to compulsory retirement from service. Furthermore, they stated that based on the compulsory retirement as per the rules, the RTI appellant Mr. V V Subba Rao was awarded with terminal benefits and "two third"

pension. The appellant had accepted the order as well as the terminal benefits as per the review order dated 30.12.2017 and had not preferred any appeal or exercised any other Page 9 of 12 legal remedy. It was contended that the appellant after accepting the terminal benefits and without filing any appeal or exercising other remedies available to him, had filed 30 RTI applications containing multiple queries relating to several accounts including the account of M/s Sri Hari Hara Cold Storage, different offices and officials of the respondent Bank resulting into diversion of resources and loss of precious time of the Bank. Details of list of the applications and appeals filed were placed on record.

5.3. The respondent further submitted that the information sought by the appellant was more in the form of allegations against the bank which could not fall within the definition of "information" as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. It was submitted that all the above RTI applications were of identical or similar in nature. They informed that these RTI applications were on same issues, with slightly altered words/requests pertaining to the account of M/s Sri Hari Hara cord Storage and also sought irrelevant information which is not at all involved any public interest. The queries of the RTI request were more of cross-examination and full of irrelevant, false and baseless allegations. In addition to the above, the respondent stated that information sought was not available in the manner it was sought and disclosure of which would disproportionately divert the Bank's useful resources as per section 7(9) of the RTI Act. Further, they stated that information sought was related to third party, held by the bank in fiduciary capacity and it was also related to commercial confidence of the bank, disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest. Accordingly, they claimed exemptions under section 8 (1) (d), (e) & (j) of the RTI Act.

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 on more than 40 points regarding account of M/s Hari Hara Cold Storage and related information. Perusal of the record reveals that the appellant had filed multiple RTI applications seeking similar information on the same subject matter which had already been replied. Moreover, most of the queries raised by the appellant in his RTI application did not fall within the definition of "information" as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. The respondent during the course of hearing submitted that information sought Page 10 of 12 by the appellant was voluminous in nature and the same was not maintained in the ordinary course of business and compilation of the same would have disproportionately diverted the Bank's resources and therefore claimed exemption under section 7(9) of the RTI Act. Besides, they also claimed exemptions under section 8 (1) (d), (e) & (j) of the RTI Act. Perusal of the records further reveals that the appellant was dealt with departmentally and dismissed from the service of the bank. Subsequently, the appellant's punishment was modified to compulsory retirement from service. It was also brought to the notice of the Commission that the appellant had accepted the order as well as the terminal benefits as per the review order dated 30.12.2017 and had not preferred any appeal or exercised any other legal remedy. The appellant during the course of hearing submitted that he was not provided the complete documents so he could not defend the case properly. It may not be out of place to mention that the procedures of disciplinary proceedings have adequate safeguards to protect the interest of charged official and whenever disciplinary action is initiated, the appellant was free to raise all those points in the departmental inquiry or was free to challenge the same in the forum/ court of competent jurisdiction. The Commission is of the view that there is no infirmity in the reply given by the respondent and no public purpose would be served in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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: 31.03.2022
Authenticated true copy

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




                                                                                  Page 11 of 12
 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO : BANK OF INDIA,
ANDHRA PRADESH ZONE,
D NO. 28-2-48, 1ST FLOOR,
DASPALLA COMPLEX SURYABAGH,
VISAKHAPATNAM,
ANDHRA PRADESH-530020.


FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
BANK OF INDIA, ANDHRA PRADESH
ZONE, D NO. 28-2-48, 1ST FLOOR,
DASPALLA COMPLEX SURYABAGH,
VISAKHAPATNAM,
ANDHRA PRADESH-530020


SH. V V SUBBA RAO




                                  Page 12 of 12

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission