Central Information Commission
Sujit Lal Sircar vs United Commercial Bank (Uco) on 25 January, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 302, CIC Bhawan,
Baba Gang Nath Marg,
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision No. CIC/UCOBK/A/2016/293148 dated 22.01.2018
Sujit Lal Sircar vs. CPIO, UCO Bank, Head Office, Kolkata
Relevant dates emerging from the Appeal:
RTI: 16.05.2016 FA: 15.06.2016 SA: 04.07.2016
CPIO: 06.06.2016 FAAO: 24.06.2016 Hearing: 19.01.2018
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), UCO Bank, Head Office, Kolkata, seeking information on seventeen points pertaining to the disciplinary action initiated against him, including, inter alia, (i) copy of note placed before the disciplinary authority by the Personnel Services Department (PSD), on receipt of appellant's reply dated 23.05.2011 to the show cause letter dated 11.05.2011 issued to the appellant for seeking his decision in the matter of initiation of disciplinary action against him and comments received from the disciplinary authority thereon, and (ii) copies of letter and note along with all enclosure addressed to the Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO), Vigilance Department, Head Office, by PSD for seeking 1st Stage Advice of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), New Delhi, in this matter.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO has wrongly denied the information on point nos. 1 to 14 and 16, under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The appellant is also aggrieved with the Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA), which upheld the CPIO's reply. The appellant further stated that the question of apprehension or prosecution of the Page | 1 offender does not arise as the investigation in the matter of alleged irregularities was over long ago and only on the basis of such investigation charge sheets were issued to him and others. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for by him expeditiously.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Sujit Lal Sirkar and the respondent Shri P. K. Malakar, AGM, UCO Bank, Head Office, Kolkata attended the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The appellant submitted that complete information in response to his RTI application was not furnished to him by the respondent. The appellant further submitted that information on point no. 15 of the RTI application was provided to him, however, the same is also vague because though he had submitted the review petition dated 19.08.2013 to the CMD Secretariat, he was informed that the same was not received. The appellant further submitted that he wants to know as to why his review petition was placed before the Appeal Committee on 16.10.2015. The appellant further submitted that information on point nos.1 to 14 and 16 of the RTI application were denied on the plea that the investigation in the matter is pending, however, the investigation was completed on 22.10.2015
5. The respondent submitted that correct and compete information on point no. 15 of the RTI application was provided to the appellant vide letter dated 06.06.2016. The respondent further submitted that the appellant was informed that his review petition dated 19.08.2013 has been received in the CMD's Secretariat on 21.08.2013. The respondent also stated that the investigation was completed on 2011 and punishment was awarded in the year 2012. However, the review petition was finally disposed of only on 22.10.2015. The respondent, however, could not explain as to why information on point nos. 1 to 14 and 16 was withheld when the case was finally disposed of on 22.10.2015 i.e. prior to the filing of the RTI application.
Page | 2 Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, notes that the review petition was finally disposed of on 22.10.2015. Yet, information on point nos. 1 to 14 and 16 of the RTI application was denied on the grounds that the disclosure of information sought would impede the process of investigation. However, the respondent could not explain as to why information on point nos. 1 to 14 and 16 was withheld when the case was finally disposed of on 22.10.2015. The Commission, therefore, directs the Registry of this Bench to issue a Show Cause Notice to the CPIO, UCO Bank, Head Office, Kolkata for explaining as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against him.
7. The Commission also directs the respondent to provide information, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (S.S. Rohilla) Designated Officer Addresses of the parties:
Page | 3
1. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), UCO Bank, Human Resource Department, Head Office, 4th Floor, 10, BTM Sarani Kolkata - 700001
2. Mr. Sujit Lal Sirkar Page | 4