Anita Halder vs Department Of Financial Services on 9 October, 2023

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Anita Halder vs Department Of Financial Services on 9 October, 2023

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated Nil include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 22.10.2021 and first appeal dated 27.11.2021:-

 "I Anita Halder filing RTI to Ministry Of Finance Government Of India and I kindly want to seek information about the function of your office as yet no necessary legal action been taken to my complaints that I have filled to department of personnel and training government of India with registration numbers:- DOPATslashEslash2021slash09320 filed on 27th September 2021 and another with registration number DOPATslashEslash2021slash09347 filed on 28th September 2021 and another complaint with registration number Page 1 of 6 DOPATslashEslash2021slash10139 filed on 11th October 2021 and all my complaints filed to department of personnel and training has been duly forwarded to ministry of finance government of India via letter number F No 463slash04slash2021dashAVDdotVbracketA on 6th October 2021 by Rakesh Kumar Gupta and yet no termination letter been issued against state bank of India staff branch STORE BAZAR ICHAPUR IFSC SBIN0001797 who is providing pension illegally to poritosh halder every month and even repeatedly complaining to the department of personnel and training, department of financial service and department of economic affairs the state bank of India staff branch STORE BAZAR ICHAPUR IFSC SBIN0001797 by violating the reserve bank of India guidelines has provided pension amount Rs 30000 to pension account holder Poritosh Halder on 22nd October 2021 and every month for pension account number 11223465316 and without taking photocopy of pan and updated aadhar card from Poritosh Halder as a KYC document and the assistant general manager of local head office Kolkata and state bank of India staff of branch STORE BAZAR ICHAPUR IFSC SBIN0001797 has failed to give documentary proof neither to the complainant Anita Halder nor to the honorable finance minister and reserve bank of India governor that the pensioner Poritosh Halder has submitted his photocopy of pan and updated aadhar card for pension account number 11223465316 to the bank and further the SBI branch staff who provides the pension to Poritosh Halder every month is lying that Poritosh Halder has submitted his photocopy of pan and updated aadhar card as KYC documents to the SBI branch as the SBI bank staff of branch- STORE BAZAR ICHAPUR IFSC SBIN0001797 and SBI local head office Kolkata itself are sending messages to pensioner Poritosh Halder in his registered mobile number Page 2 of 6 9874805867 linked with pension account number 11223465316 to provide KYC documents of pan and updated Aadhar card to avoid any inconvenience then how could the bank staff of branch STORE BAZAR ICHAPUR IFSC SBIN0001797 without taking KYC documents has provided pension amount Rs 30000 to pensioner Poritosh Halde rfor his pension account number 11223465316 on 22nd October 2021 at 4 01 PM and still not freezing his pension account number 11223465316 and not restricting him to withdraw pension from his pension account number- xxxxx5316 as per RBI guidelines"

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 22.10.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Department of Financial Service, New Delhi, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 18.11.2021 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 27.11.2021. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated22.12.2021 replied to appellant and disposed off the appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated Nil before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated Nil 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 18.11.2021 is reproduced as under:

(i) "CPIO, IR Section, DFS the custodian of information sought by you. You may seek specific information directly from the concerned Public Sector bank/Department or rather their grievance redressed mechanism, if required. As the matter concerns State Bank of India, copy of RTI application has been transferred online to PIO, State Bank of India. You Page 3 of 6 are advised to take up the matter directly with the aforesaid PIO, it required. It is seen that the matter has been dealt by BO3 Section of this department. Hence, you may also refer to the reply furnished by CPIO of BO3, Section to whom the RTI application is already forwarded Information sought by you."

The FAA vide order dated 22.12.2021 is mentioned as under:

(i) "With reference to the above, the undersigned has examined the contents of the Appeal DOFSR/A /E/21/00211 dated 27.11.2021, CPIO's reply dated 17.11.2021 and RTI application Registration No. DOFSR/R /E/21/01534/1 dated 22.10.2021 of Ms. Anita Haldar and the records related thereto.

(ii) It is observed that Ms. Anita Haldar vide her RTI application dated 22.10.2021 had sought information related to her grievance pertaining to pension matter in State Bank of India. Considering the RTI application of the Appellant in light of the provisions of the RTI Act, the CPIO, I.R. Section sent a reply vide letter No. 15/65/2021- IR dated 17.11.2021 and forwarded the RTI application to PIO, State Bank of India. However, dissatisfied with the reply furnished by the PIO State Bank of India, the Appellant has preferred the present Appeal.

(iii) After due consideration, it is found that CPIO (IR) vide letter dated 17.11.2021 had appropriately replied to the Appellant. It is also seen that the CPIO had advised the Appellant to take up the matter directly with the concerned Public Sector Bank and forwarded the RTI application to PIO, State Bank of India for necessary action, as per provisions of RTI Act, 2005.

Since this Appellate Authority does not exercise any jurisdiction over the other PIOs, Appellant is advised to approach the concerned FAA directly, if required. Nevertheless, a copy of the Appeal dated 27.11.2021 is being forwarded to FAA of State Bank of India, H.O. Mumbai for action as appropriate."

Page 4 of 6

5. The appellant with her son Shri Kalyan Halder attended the hearing through audio conference and on behalf of the respondent Shri Vijay Shankar Tiwari, CPIO, Department of Financial Services, Delhi attended the hearing in person.

5.1. The appellant's representative and soninter alia submitted that his mother (Appellant) had filed a complaint regarding alleged money laundering against her husband Mr. Paritosh Halder. He argued that the bank officials were allegedly protecting Mr. Paritosh by not freezing his account who was receiving pension despite no KYC compliance. However, the respondent had neither taken action on the appellant's complaints nor provided the information in response to the RTI application.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant's husband Mr. Paritosh Halder against whom she had filed several complaints, was drawing pension from State Bank of India. They further stated that although the RTI application was filed before them seeking information about action taken on letters and complaints filed by her regarding pension matters, and the pension was disbursed through State Bank of India. Therefore, they were unable to provide the information. They further stated that they had communicated with the State Bank of India regarding the complaints of the appellant and SBI had denied to disclose any information on the ground of third party information.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the appellant sought action taken on her complaints from the Department of Financial Services. The respondent (DFS) inter- alia informed that they had transferred the RTI to the concerned sector i.e. State Bank of India. During the course of hearing, it was brought out by the representatives of DFS that SBI had denied the information on the ground that the information was related to third party. However, the appellant being wife and joint holder of account, was not stranger in the case and was entitled to the information i.e. action taken on her letters and complaints.Moreover, a period of over two years having elapsed, the requisite information has not been provided to the appellant, till the date of hearing. In view of the above, the respondent (DFS) is directed to ascertain from the concerned bank, action Page 5 of 6 taken on complaints referred to in the RTI application and provide a self-contained information to the appellant within 4 weeks of the receipt of this order. With these observations and directions, 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: 09.10.2023 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत#) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

THE CPIO: Department of Financial Services, 3rd floor Jeevan Deep Building, Sansad Marg, New Delhi -110001 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY Department of Financial Services, 3rd floor Jeevan Deep Building, Sansad Marg, New Delhi -110001 MS. ANITA HALDER Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission