Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Deepak Sharma vs Bank Of India on 19 January, 2023

Author: Suresh Chandra

Bench: Suresh Chandra

                                 के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                          Central Information Commission
                             बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                           Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                           नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.CIC/BKOIN/A/2021/615377
Deepak Sharma                                     ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                    VERSUS
                                    बनाम
CPIO: Bank of India, Kanpur
                                                     ... ितवादीगण/Respondents

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 26.10.2020            FA      : 04.12.2020        SA         : dated Nil

CPIO : 27.11.2020           FAO : 28.01.2021            Hearing : 11.11.2022


                                      CORAM:
                                Hon'ble Commissioner
                              SHRI SURESH CHANDRA
                                     ORDER

(16.01.2023)

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 26.10.2020 and first appeal dated 04.12.2020:-

"Appellant sought information regarding bank and an employee (Name-Rahul Shastri, s/o Purshottam Shastri, PF no- 183860) of Bank of India (post- Probationary officer, scale-II) who was arrested and in jail since 31st October, 2018 under IPC sections 302, 304-B, 498-A, 504 & 120-B and sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibion Act 1961. The hearing of the case is going in court district proceedings in Jhansi, U.P. Page 1 of 4
1. What is the policy of Bank of India for an employee for above mentioned circumstances?
2. What is the defined timeline and guidelines for a suspended employee in Bank of India who is in jail since last 2 years? Please mention the maximum duration as per Bank of India policy for which an employee can remain under suspension charged under above mentioned sections.
3. What are the provisions of salary and other allowances in Bank of India for an employee who is suspended and in prison under such criminal offence? Please mention the maximum time for which these monetary benefits can be given to a suspended employee charged under serious sections of IPC as mentioned above.
4. Please provide certified copy of action taken by Bank of India against your bank employee Rahul Shastri s/o Purushottam Shastri (PF no- 183860) against whom charge sheet has been filed and court hearing is going on?
5. Please provide the certified copy of salary/allowances paid to Rahul Shastri s/o Purshottam Shastri (PF no- 183860) for the period of Sept-2018 to Oct -2020, along with the bank policies for payments done to detained officials.
6. Please provide the certified copy of monetary benefits related to Leased House facility being given by Bank to Rahul Shastri s/o Purushottam Shastri (PF no- 183860) since Jan-2018 to Dec-2018.
7. Please provide the certified copy of suspension order issued by Bank of India against Rahul Shastri s/o Purushottam Shastri (PF no- 183860)."

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 26.10.2020 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of India, Kanpur, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 27.11.2020 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 04.12.2020. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 28.01.2021 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by Page 2 of 4 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 27.11.2020 and denied the information under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. The FAA vide order dated 28.01.2021 agreed with the reply given by the CPIO

5. Both the parties remained absent despite notice.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observed that due reply was given by the CPIO on 27.11.2020. The appellant had sought information about third party Shri Rahul Shastri and in absence of the any larger public interest, there appears to be no larger public interest in further prolonging the matter. Further, both the parties remained absent. The matter not being pressed for, the appeal is 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: 16.01.2023
Authenticated true copy

R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)




                                                                                 Page 3 of 4
 Addresses of the parties:
THE CPIO: BANK OF INDIA
78-A, RAJ BHAWAN, CANAL ROAD,
NEAR JUHARI DEVI GIRLS COLLEGE,
 KANPUR, UTTAR PRADESH 208 004


THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY
BANK OF INDIA 78-A, RAJ BHAWAN, CANAL
ROAD, NEAR JUHARI DEVI GIRLS COLLEGE,
KANPUR, UTTAR PRADESH 208 004

SH. DEEPAK SHARMA




                                        Page 4 of 4