Rekha Nellypally vs Union Bank Of India on 25 January, 2020

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Rekha Nellypally vs Union Bank Of India on 25 January, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 25.06.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through her RTI application dated 02.03.2018 and first appeal dated 04.04.2018:-

 The appellant is an employee of the bank. As per promotion policy circulated vide staff circular no. 5839 dated 11th April 2012, in the Page 1 of 4 Promotion from Scale IV scale V, relaxation in the eligibility criteria of 3 years Branch Head service may be permitted as may be referred to in Page 5 of the policy circular. Hence, he sought information regarding board approval for promotion process from Scale IV to Scale V.

(i) Please inform whether Board/RBI/Ministry of Finance approval was obtained specifically and justification for the same.

(ii) Please inform whether specific permission in this regard was obtained from Board/RBI Ministry of Finance and if so, what were the reason and justification given.

(iii) Provide reasons/justifications for allowing relaxation in Branch head service and whether permission from RBI/ Ministry of Finance is obtained. Furnish number of vacancies identified each year and the number of candidates available for promotion vis a-vis the identified vacancies without giving the relaxation.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 02.03.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Union Bank of India, Central Office, Nariman Point Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. Dissatisfied with the non-response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 04.04.2018. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 07.06.2018 disposed of the first appeal. The CPIO replied on 11.04.2018. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 25.06.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 25.06.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant has requested the Commission to direct the CPIO/FAA to provide the information Page 2 of 4 immediately and award compensation for not providing the information within the stipulated time period.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 11.04.2018 provided information to the appellant and regard reasons and justification stated that the CPIO can provide the information only available with them. The FAA vide order dated 07.06.2018 agreed with the views of the CPIO and further denied the policy under section 8 (1)(d) of the RTI Act.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri K.C. Choudhary, Asstt. General Manager, Union Bank of India, Bandra, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that reply given by the then CPIO was incomplete and vague. She alleged that the respondent did not provide the specific information as sought by her in the RTI application. 5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had already replied to the RTI application as per the provisions of the RTI Act. They further submitted that they had provided part of information and declined on the other part as the appellant was seeking justification and reasons of giving relaxation in the promotion process decided by the Board which was not given being confidential in nature. However, the circular in this regard was already available on the portal of the bank accessible to all staff member including the appellant.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, notes that due reply/information has already by the respondent vide letter dated 11.04.2018 and 07.06.2018. It may not be out of place to mention that under the provisions of the RTI Act, the CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to provide reasons/justifications of any decision. Thus, the appellant may not expect the respondent to take certain action or initiate action as desired by her. In view of the Page 3 of 4 above, Commission feels that 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/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 24.01.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

UNION BANK OF INDIA UNION BANK BHAWAN, 14th FLOOR, 239, VIDHAN BHAWAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 400 021 THE F.A.A, UNION BANK OF INDIA, 239, VIDHAN BHAWAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 400 021 REKHA NELLYPALLY Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission