S. Hanumanthappa vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 23 January, 2020

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

S. Hanumanthappa vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 23 January, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 26.02.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 18.08.2017 and first appeal dated 05.10.2017:-

Page 1 of 4

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 18.08.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Pragati Gramin Bank, Jajur seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 03.10.2017. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 05.10.2017. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 24.10.2017. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 26.02.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 26.02.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant has requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information immediately.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 03.10.2017 denied the information under clause

(e) of sub section (1) of section 8 and. The FAA vide his order dated 24.10.2017 agreed with the views taken by the CPIO.

Page 2 of 4

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Viresh, CPIO and Shri Madhukara Reddy, Manager, Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank, Bellary attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent inter alia submitted that as per the allegations made by the appellant, Shri K.B. Manjaiah, the then Cashier of the respondent bank had misappropriated the amount of Rs. 35000/- which was deposited by the appellant in his account on 03.07.2014. The appellant in his letter also alleged that the Cashier did not give him counterfoil and also refused to credit aforesaid money in the appellant's account. They further submitted that the appellant requested the Chairman, Head office, Bellary to recover an amount of Rs. 35000/- from the cashier and deposit the same in his account. However, the appellant's claim was rejected due to absence of proper documents/evidences and the same was intimated to the appellant vide letter dated 04.08.2017. The respondent argued that appellant's claim was rejected by following due procedure and proper enquiry was held in this matter. However, they refused to share the enquiry report being internal document of the bank.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, notes that reply given by the respondent is vague and misleading. It is pertinent to mention that inquiry was made on the complaint filed by the appellant with regard to non credit of certain amount in his account. Hence, the claim of the respondent that enquiry report was internal matter of the bank may not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to provide aforesaid enquiry report after redacting the name Page 3 of 4 of the enquiry officer, within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With the above directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 22.01.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

PRAGATHI KRISHNA GRAMIN BANK HEAD OFFICE, 32, SANGANAKAL ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, BELLARY -583 101 THE F.A.A, PRAGATHI KRISHNA GRAMIN BANK HEAD OFFICE, 32, SANGANAKAL ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, BELLARY -583 101 S. HANUMANTHAPPA Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission