Anil Kumar Mohanty vs Bank Of India on 11 September, 2023

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Anil Kumar Mohanty vs Bank Of India on 11 September, 2023

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 30.01.2022 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated05.07.2021 and first appeal dated 03.10.2021:-

 RTI application in the matter of disciplinary proceedings drawn up against Sri Anil Kumar Mohanty, Staff Officer, Bank of India, PF No. 170078 vide penalty order No. ZO:IR:18-19:COM-38:173 dated 12.09.2018:

(a) Supply attested photocopy of Preliminary Investigation/inquiry report of Sri Ranjan Kumar Khadanga, Ex-Chief Manager, Bank of India, Berhampur Branch conducted at Rayagada Branch on 22.02.2017(submitted his inquiry findings on 23.02.2017 to the Zonal Authority, Bank of India, Bhubaneswar Zone) on the letter of Zonal Authority vide No ZO:IR:COM-37:316 dated 22.02.2017be supplied as Sri Khadanga has affirmed in the Evidence Sheet No 3 dated 22.05.2018 Question No 2 (DAto DW-1 in Examination in Chief) that he had conducted the preliminary inquiry on 22.02.2017at Rayagada Branch and reported the findings on Page 1 of 6 23.02.20217 to Zonal Office in cross-examination Sri Khadanga in Question No 1 (PO to DW-1 Evidence Sheet No 2 dated 22.5.2018, Sri Khadanga confirmed that vide ZO IOM No ZO IR COM: 37-316 dated 22.2.2017, he had conducted preliminary inquiry at Rayagada Branch on 22.02.2017and submitted preliminary report on 23.022017 which was not considered by the competent authority.

(b) Supply attested photocopies of (A) Memorandum of charges issued to Sri ParsuramSethi, Senior Branch Manager, Rayagada branch, (B) Reply of Sri ParsuramSethi to the Memo issued to him and (C) Disciplinary Action taken against Sri ParsuramSethi, Senior Branch Manager on his allegation dated 22.02.2017 with regard to Disciplinary Action taken against Sri Anil Kumar Mohanty, Senior Manager, Bank of India, Rayagada Branch wherein the involvement of Sri ParsuramSethi, SBM, Rayagada Branch in the followings (1) withdrawals (2) Transfer and (3) Activation of Dormant Account where signature of Sri ParsuramSethi and/or verification of vouchers by Sri ParsuramSethi done through computer system.

(c) As per instruction of the then Zonal Manager, Bhubaneswar Zone (Anil Kumar Mohanty,PF No 170078) deposited Rs 88,209/- to branch office account No ***R099 on 27.02.2017 vide tran id ****2063 M/E no. 14/3, Rs. 40,000/- on 27.022017 to branch office account no ****R099 vide tran id ****1440 M/E no 14/2 Rs 25,000/- on 21.02.2017 to branch P/L postage account *****E005 vide tran id *****4748 M/E no. 14/1, Rs 1493 on date 01.03.2017 to branch office account No *****R099 vide tran is ****5977 M/E no 14/4 (Even though postage stamps worth Rs 85,100) was very much available in bank and Rs 40,000/- was found in bank double lock which was previously withdrawn for purchase of postal stamps and Rs 25,000/- was deposited on 21.02.2017 which was withdrawn on the same date).

(d) The photocopy of documents regarding communication between Disciplinary Authority BOI Zonal Office, Bhubaneswar and Bank of India Head Office, Mumbai and /or CVO Head Office and the recommendation of Bank of India, Head Office, Mumbai and/or CVO, Head Office before passing of the Page 2 of 6 Penalty Order against Sri Anil Kumar Mohanty, Staff Officer, Bank of India, PF No 170078 vide Penalty order No ZO:IR:18-19 COM-38:173 dated 12.09.2018. (e ) The photocopy of documents regarding communication between Appellate Authority, Bank of India Head Office, Mumbai and /or CVO Head Office and the recommendation of Bank of India, Head Office, Mumbai and/or CVO, Head Office before passing of the Appellate Order against Sri Anil KumarMohanty, Staff officer, Bank of India,PF No 17078 vide Appellate order No ZO:IR:20-21: COM- 38:16(a) dated 30.05.2020.

(f) Before passing of the Show Cause Notice No AKP;CA;23 dated 31.05.2021 on the review application of Sri Anil Kumar Mohanty, Staff Officer, PF No 170078, the attested photocopy of recommendation of the Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Bhubaneswar Zone to GM (HR) Head office, Mumbai be supplied.

(g) Supply the photocopy of the circulars / guidelines of Bank of India while deciding the quantum of punishment imposed on the delinquent officer / employee as per the following table.

      Classification of                 Range of Amount involved
      offence        on Type    of   offence Type of offence Type            of
      financial loss to (Misappropriation)    Type (Fraud)       offence(NPA)
      the bank
      Minor Misconduct
      Minor Misconduct
      Vigilance
      Non-vigilance
      Any other

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 05.07.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of India, Bhubaneswar. The CPIO vide letter dated 06.09.2021 replied to the appellant. Aggrievedby the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 03.10.2021. The First Appellate Authority(FAA) vide order dated 09.09.2021disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved bythat, the appellant filed second appeal dated 30.01.2022 before the Commission which is under consideration.

Page 3 of 6

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated30.01.2022 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 06.09.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:-

(a) "Ref to letter no. ZO:IR:21:COM-38:112 dated 10.06.2021 that no such preliminary inquiry report submitted by Shri Ranjan Kumar Khadanga (Ex-Chief Manager -Berhampur Branch).

(b) Point no.(b) - That, Shri ParsuramSethi has been imposed a penalty of censure.

(c ) Point no. (c,d,e& f) - Since the matter is sub-judice before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack vide W.P. (C ) No 17293 of 2021, thus at this stage the copy of documents cannot be supplied to you.

(d) Point no. (g) - Penalty is decided as per gravity of misconduct committed which is as per provisions laid down in Bank of India Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976."

The FAA vide order dated 09.09.2021 reply given by the CPIO is upheld.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Ashok Jena, CPIO and Deputy General Manager, Bank of India, Bhubaneswar, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had deliberately withheld the information although non-disclosure of the information directly and adversely affected him. He further argued that common memo of charges sheet was issued against him as well as against Shri Parshuram Shetty and the copy of preliminary inquiry report was not provided to him, till the date of hearing.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that there was no preliminary inquiry report as sought by the appellant. Moreover, although a common charge sheet was prepared against the appellant and Mr. Parsuram Shetty, the awards of punishment were different for both the officials. Further, the matter was sub judice Page 4 of 6 before High Court of Odisha, Cuttack. Therefore, they had claimed exemption under the provisions of section 8 (1) (e) 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 respondent had denied information against point nos(c), (d), (e) and (f) of the RTI application under the provisions of section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, inter alia on the grounds that the matter was sub judice. The respondent informed thatthere were common proceedings initiated against the appellant and Mr. Parsuram Shetty, however, different punishments were awarded to each of them. The fact that common proceedings were initiated against the two individuals through a common charge sheet, may not be ignored merely on the ground that the matter was sub-judice before a court of law. Though the information sought in point nos(c), (d), (e) and (f) of the RTI application is clumsy, however, proper response with reasons was required to be communicated to the appellant. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to re-visit the RTI application and provide point-wise revised reply to the appellant within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With respect to point no. (a) of the RTI application, the respondent had claimed that there was no preliminary report. Hence, the question of providing the same does not arise. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक/Date: 06.09.2023 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत#) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 5 of 6 Addresses of the parties:

The CPIO BANK OF INDIA 1/1 D,Jayadev Vihar, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar, ODISHA - 751015 First Appellate Authority BANK OF INDIA 1/1D,Jayadev Vihar, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar, ODISHA -751015 Shri Anil Kumar Mohanty Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission