Rekha Nellypally vs Union Bank Of India on 10 November, 2020

[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Central Information Commission

Rekha Nellypally vs Union Bank Of India on 10 November, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 03.04.2018 include non receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through her RTI application dated 29.01.2018 and first appeal dated 23.02.2018:

 Appellant is an employee of our esteemed Bank. I am working as Chief Manager, in SD Road branch, Secunderabad. I have given a complaint under Sexual harassment in workplace on 19.05.2009.

   (i)    Period when the enquiry was conducted.
   (ii)   Members of the enquiry committee.

                                                                                   Page 1 of 8
 (iii)    Members of the Internal complaints committee.
(iv)     When the report of the enquiry submitted to ICC.
(v)      When the outcome of the enquiry conveyed to the complaint.
(vi)     Date of closure of complaint.

(vii) Any annual returns are to be filed on Sexual Harassment Policy. If yes, furnish copy of the returns for the year 2009-10.

(viii) Any appeal was filed by the complainant.

(ix) If yes, what was the outcome of the appeal

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 29.01.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Union Bank of India, Regional office, Pujagutta, Hyderabad, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 20.02.2018.

Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 23.02.2018. The First Appellate Authority did not pass any order. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 03.04.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 03.04.2018 inter alia on the grounds that not satisfied with the CPIO's reply and no order passed by the FAA. The appellant has requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information immediately and award her compensation for not providing the information within the stipulated time period as per the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 20.02.2018 asked the appellant to forward a copy of complaint to enable them to provide the information. The FAA did not pass any order.

Page 2 of 8

Hearing on 23.01.2020:

4.1. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri K Bhaskar Raju, Chief Manager (Law), Union Bank of India, Hyderabad attended the hearing through video conference.

4.2. The Commission passed the following directions on 29.01.2020:

"The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, notes that point-wise reply has already been provided by the respondent vide letter dated 30.06.2018 and the appellant is satisfied with the information provided on point nos. (i) to (vi) of the RTI application. With regard to point no. (vii) of the RTI application, the respondent simply cannot escape from the liability by saying that annual report on sexual harassment policy for the year was not traceable without giving any justification. There has been plethora of cases wherein whenever the public authority is taking stand that the records are not available or traceable they should explain the efforts made by them to trace and for loss of public record responsibility may be fixed. Perusal of the reply dated 30.06.2018 reveals that reply given by the CPIO on point nos. (vii) to (ix) is incomplete and evasive. In view of this the Commission feels that interest of justice would be served if the respondent is directed to provide revised information/ reply on point nos. (vii) to (ix) of the RTI application. Accordingly, the instant matter is adjourned and the respondent is directed to make a due effort to search the records thoroughly and provide revised point-wise information on point nos. (vii) to (ix) of the RTI application, to the appellant within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order."

Hearing on 30.04.2020:

4.1. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri C V N Bhaskar Rao, CPIO, Union Bank of India, Hyderabad attended the hearing through audio conference.

4.2 The Commission passed the following directions on 04.05.2020:

Page 3 of 8

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, is of the view that the information is not being made available by the HR Division of their Corporate Office. The information has not been furnished to the appellant so far due due to lack of coordination within the sections of respondent bank. This has caused a lapse of over two years. Keeping in view the violation of provisions of RTI Act, the Registry of this Bench is directed to issue show cause notices to Shri C.V.N. Bhaskar Rao, CPIO and to the General Manager, HR Division, Corporate Office, Union Bank of India as deemed CPIO, to show cause as to why penalty under the provisions of section 20 (1) of the RTI Act may not be imposed upon each of them for not furnishing the information and thus complying with the mandate of the RTI Act. Shri C.V.N. Bhaskar Rao is given the responsibility to serve a copy of this order upon the GM, HR Division to furnish written explanations and secure his attendance in the next date of hearing. All written submissions must reach this Commission within 21 days."

Hearing on 13.10.2020:

5. The appellant attended the hearing through audio conference and the respondent Shri C.V.N. Bhaskar Rao, CPIO, Union Bank of India, Hyderabad, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant while presenting her case inter alia submitted that complaint under Sexual harassment at work place was a delicate and sensitive issue, where the copy of the complaint could not be forwarded to every desk; that it is evident that the complaint must have been forwarded to Chairperson, Women's cell, Union bank of lndia, Central office, Mumbai; that the complaint was forwarded by her to Chairperson, Women's cell, Central office, Mumbai in May 2009. The compliant dated 17.05.2009 was forwarded to Chairperson on 19.05.2009; that the information would be available at the Women's cell, Central office, Union Bank of India, Mumbai; that the complaints since the implementation of the act in 1990s, would be available with the Women's forum as the Page 4 of 8 complaint per year would be in single digits. The appellant submitted that the complaint sent to the AP Women's Commission on 18.01.2011 may be considered as a complaint/representation or appeal but the fact was that the same was filed by her against the findings on SHRC in her complaint dated 19.05.2009 submitted to the bank. The bank failed to provide any documents or files relating to the enquiry despite a lapse of period of two years. Therefore, the appellant requested the Commission to impose penalty upon the concerned CPIOs.

5.2 The respondent (Shri C.V.N. Bhaskar Rao) while defending their case inter alia submitted that the written explanation in response to the show cause notice dated 04.05.2020 was submitted vide letter dated 21.05.2020. The respondent explained that on the date of hearing i.e. 23.01.2020 he could not attend the hearing as he attended the Parliamentary Committee meeting at Hyderabad. The respondent further submitted that the HR department, Central Office after thorough search could only find covering letter bearing dated 21.05.2010 vide which annual report as of March 2010 pertaining to Sexual Harassment at Workplace was filed with the Ministry of Finance and the same was forwarded to their Deptt vide letter dated 18.03.2020. Therefore, they could not trace the information in respect of point nos. vii to ix of RTI application despite thorough search. Accordingly, the same was informed to the appellant vide their letter dated 18.03.2020. The respondent further submitted that the appellant had tried to mislead the Commission by stating that she filed appeal before the bank in respect of her sexual harassment complaint dated 17.05.2009. However, the first document was uploaded by her i.e. letter dated 18.01.2011 addressed to Chairperson, AP Women's Commission and the same may not be termed as an appeal filed against findings of the SHRC of the bank in respect of the complaint dated 17.05.2009 lodged with the bank. The outcome of the enquiry was intimated to the appellant on 06.12.2010 i.e. the fact of the matter was not clearly emerging out due to lack of eyewitnesses and evidence and it Page 5 of 8 would be desirable to transfer the services of both or either one. At the relevant time, there was no provisions for filing an appeal against the decision of the SHRC. Therefore, they had provided information as available with them i.e. the covering letter and submitted that there was no mala fide to withhold any information sought by the appellant.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observes that in compliance of the directions of the Commission the respondent have submitted their written explanation on 21.05.2020. The respondent have pleaded that the information in respect of point nos (vii) to (ix) of RTI Application was not traceable. Perusal of records further reveals that the information including the report dated 06.12.2010 of the SHRC of the bank and covering letter was disclosed by the respondent to the appellant in pursuance of the directions of the Commission. Further, it could not be ascertained as to how the covering letter could be traced, however, the documents/enclosures could not be traced despite thorough search of records. The respondent did not submit any weeding out records in respect of the documents sought. The CPIO, Human Resource Department being the custodian of the information failed to explain the non-availability of records which indicated not only the violation of provisions of RTI Act but also the non- compliance of the preservation policy/weeding out policy of the public authority. Therefore, the delay caused in this matter reflects the callous attitude and ignorance of the then CPIO towards RTI applicants. Moreover, the written explanations given by both the CPIOs were not satisfactory, especially, in respect of the documents not being traceable. The Commission feels that both the CPIOs have caused unreasonable delay and deliberate obstruction of information in this case. In view of the above discussion, mala fide on part of both the CPIOs was established.

Page 6 of 8

6.1. The Commission notes that the negligence of statutory duty as designated CPIOs appears to be deliberate and mala fide is established on part of both Shri C.V.N. Bhaskar Rao, present CPIO as well as to Shri Brajeshwar Sharma, the then CPIO, HR Department, hence, both are found liable as per section 20 (1) of RTI Act. In view of the mala fide attributable to the CPIOs, a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) may be imposed on Shri Brajeshwar Sharma, the then CPIO, HR Department, and penalty of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) on Shri C.V.N. Bhaskar Rao, the CPIO. The penalty amount of Rs. 10,000/- shall be deducted from the salary of Shri Brajeshwar Sharma (in two equal monthly instalments), and amount of Rs. 5,000/- shall be deducted from the salary of Shri C.V.N. Bhaskar Rao by the Public Authority, paid by way of demand draft drawn in favour of "PAO, CAT", New Delhi, and forward the demand drafts addressed to the Deputy Registrar (CR-II), email: [email protected] Room No. 106, First Floor, Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi 110067. The first instalment of penalty amount should reach to the Commission by 25.12.2020 and the final instalment should reach the Commission by 25.02.2021. With these directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 09.11.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 7 of 8 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

UNION BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, PRESTIGE RAI TOWERS, Opp. NIMS, PUNJAGUTTA, HYDERABAD - 500 082 THE F.A.A, UNION BANK OF INDIA, 239, VIDHAN BHAWAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 400 021 REKHA NELLYPALLY Page 8 of 8

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission