Abdur Rahman vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 7 August, 2019

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Abdur Rahman vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 7 August, 2019

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeals dated 20.10.17 and 15.12.17 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through two identical RTI applications dated 12.07.2017 and first appeal dated 28.07.2017:

(i) वीर नगर शाखा के Migration difference की रािश का पचास ितशत रािश िकस प रप!/प! के आलोक म' मुझ पर दे यता लाभ कर बसूली की गयी I Page 1 of 3

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 12.07.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Uttar Bihar Grameen Bank, Araria seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 14.07.2017. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed first appeal dated 28.07.2017. The First Appellate Authority Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 02.08.2017. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed two second appeals dated 20.10.2017 and 15.12.2017 before this Commission which is under consideration. Since both 2nd appeals are identical the Commission feels it desirable to pass their common order.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeals dated 20.10.2017 and 15.12.2017 inter alia on the grounds that requisite information was not given by the CPIO and the FAA .The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information immediately within 7 days without any cost and penalize the CPIO as per sub-sections (1) & (2) of section 20 of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied on 14.07.2017 that the information sought by the appellant was relating to staff accountability and privilege documents which could not be furnished to the appellant.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Rajeshwar Dubey, Regional Manager, Uttar Bihar Grameen Bank, Araria, attended the hearing through Video Conference.

5.1. The respondent submitted that it was falsely claimed by the appellant that they had not responded to his RTI application whereas they had replied to him vide registered letter dated 14.07.2017. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant as he was accused in a case of asset misappropriation and fraud. The relevant documents were provided to the appellant during the course of inquiry but he Page 2 of 3 had sought the reasons for awarding punishment to him. The reasons could not be provided to the appellant as the same was not covered under the definition of 'information' as prescribed under section 2 (f) of RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, feels that the respondent has given due reply vide letter dated 14.07.2017. Besides, the appellant has not approached the Commission with clean hands. He was absent and did not file any objection. There appears to be no public interest in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the appeals are 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:24.07.2019




                                                                            Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission