Central Information Commission
Mr. Shishir Gupta vs Reserve Bank Of India on 14 May, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2010/000033/SG/18897
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2010/000033/SG
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Shishir Gupta
E-18 RBI Staff Qtrs Kamaraja Salai
KK Nagar Chennai 600078
Respondent : PIO
Department of Administration & Personnel Management RESERVE BANK OF INDIA Central office, Amar Building, PM. Marg,, Mumbai-400001 RTI application filed on : 07/11/2008 PIO replied : 14/01/2009, 12/09/09 & 17/03/09 First Appeal : 19/02/2009 & 17/04/09 First Appellate Authority order : 27/04/09 & 07/07/09 Second Appeal received on : 28/12/2011 S.No Queries Reply 1 Identification and provision of the one missing As per our records, the enclosures to the said letter sheet out of the 150 sheet enclosure to Letter numbered 150 sheets. No. DAPM (Che).474202.023212008-09 dated 2411012008 (page 2).
2 Copy of the complaint with all its enclosures Complaints received from third parties in fiduciary on which the referred OBS investigations were capacity are exempt from disclosure under Sections based, the copy of this two 085 reports based 8(1) (e) & (j) of the Act. Inspection/Scrutiny reports on the two complaints along with all working of banks and related documents received from papers and enclosures and the copy of the banks are exempt from disclosure under Section 80) inspection report on RNSBL submitted by the (a) & (e) of the Act (extract enclosed). However, it requested and that complied in the year 2002 is understood that a copy each of the two along with all attached working papers and all Department of Banking Supervision reports dated enclosures (page 3, 6 & 7). September 29, 2006 and August 09, 2007 and a copy of the complaint have been furnished to you earlier.
3 The method and instructions following which Urban Banks Department, Central Office of the Bank came to the conclusion that even after Reserve Bank. vide letter UBD.CO.BSD./NS. 11/ fifty percent credit coverage and doubling of 4079/12.28.022)2007- 08 dated October 18, 2007 the NPA level of the Urban bank inspected- a requested the Lucknow Office to institute action conclusion of inadequate coverage was arrived against the Inspecting Officer, who conducted the at warranting issuance of show cause notice. statutory inspection of RNS Bank Ltd., Lucknow Instructions as to how this set of methods and with reference to its position as on September instructions- used in arriving at the conclusion 30,2004 for not reporting the true financial position of inadequate coverage-is linked to the cited of the bank. UBD.C.O. again vide letter UBD.
Page 1 of 6provisions of RBI Staff Regulations (page 5). CO.5319112.38.02212007-08 dated November 21, 2007 advised Lucknow Office to consider initiating action against the inspecting officer under the provisions of RBI (Staff) Regulation, 1948. Under the circumstances, it was decided to initiate action against you by issue of a show cause to you when the case referring to your transfer to Chennai was referred 4 What are the written definitions of the words The words 'negligence' and 'inefficiency' have not 'negligence' and 'inefficiency' and in the been specifically defined in the P81 (Staff) context of Urban bank's inspection and in Regulation, 1948. relation to the present case facts-as contained The report based on the scrutiny conducted by the in the RBI Staff Regulations. An extract of inspecting officer from Department of Banking such explanation as to how such administrative Supervision, Lucknow revealed a number of position was applied to the present case facts violations of regulatory guidelines and other short (page 6). comings in the function of the RNS Bank Ltd., Lucknow. Further, it was observed that the earlier statutory inspection position as on September 30, 2002 and September 30, 2004 had not been conducted with the required level of diligence. Regulatory violation had not been reported and there has been underreporting of NPAs in order to keep the bank's grading at a higher level (Ref.
UBD. CO.BSD.NS1 1)4079/12.28.02212007-08 dated 18.10.2007). The Officer concerned (Shri Shishir Gupta), who conducted the statutory inspection with reference the statutory inspection with reference to the bank's financial position as on September 30, 2002 had, therefore, displayed gross negligence and in-efficiency in the discharge of duties assigned to him, detrimental to the interests of the Bank. It was, therefore, decided to initiate action against him in terms of provisions of Regulation 34 of R8I (Staff) Regulations 1948.
5 (i) Information on Rs.21 7601- from (i) Copy of the report of Investigation
the monthly salaries of the Officer dated March 12, 2004 is
requestor along with copies of the enclosed.
I.0's report in the recovery episode (ii) As per records available with us, your
and of the evidence proving that the representation dated May 6, 2004
bills were either forged or inflated addressed to the Governor, Reserve
as alleged by the RD, Kanpur-the Bank, was disposed of by advising our
Competent Authority-in his Kanpur Office to counsel you vide letter
allegatory letter issued towards his L.K.DAPM.No. 235/01.01.002/2003-04
retirement to all the concerned dated May 25, 2004(copy enclosed).
officers in this episode. Accordingly, you were counseled by the
(ii) Status of the requestor' s Regional Director, RBI, Kanpur. You
representation to the offices of the were advised to change the attitude and
Governor of RBI on this episode improve upon conduct. As you had
and as to how evidence of an agreed Lucknow Office was advised to
orderly bill enclosed with the afford you another opportunity to bring
representation, was viewed and or a positive change in your conduct in the
ignored by those responsible for days to come. The mailer was treated as
Page 2 of 6
forwarding/processing this closed (copy of Kanpur Office letter
representation. dated October 12, 2004 (enclosed).
(iii) Specific information on the (iii) You have not mentioned any particulars
requestor's representation fearing of your representations (date etc.). As
gross under- evaluation in the per records available with the Bank, the
confidential reports by the reporting letters/representations dated December
officers-either at the appraising 27, 2003 and January 19, 2004,
stage or review stage - and sought addressed to the Governor, were
fair evaluations in the confidential disposed of by advising you vide letter
reports and retrospective promotion L.K.DAPM,NO. 2639/01.01.002/2003-
with back date. How such request 04 dated January 14, 204 to desist from
was viewed and after what level of leveling charges against your superiors,
investigations against the reported repetition of which will be viewed
officers. seriously by the Bank(copy enclosed)
(iv) Complete latest postal and mailing Regarding your representation dated
of the address of the aforesaid May 6, 2005, you were counseled by the
competent authority in this episode. Regional Director, Kanpur office (Ref
(page 8) .letter from Kanpur
office.KAN.DAPM.479/08.04.01f2004-
05 dated October 12, 2004). You were
advised to change attitude and improve
the conduct. As you had agreed to the
same, Lucknow office was advised to
afford another opportunity to bring a
positive change in your conduct in the
days to come. The matter was treated as
closed (copy enclosed).
(iv) SM Sal Krishna Vasdev has since retired
from the Reserve Bank's services.
Information pertaining to the residential
address is personal information held by
us in fiduciary capacity which is exempt
from disclosure under Sections 8(1) (e)
& (j) of the Act (extract enclosed).
6 Point -wise reply of the CA and the AR to the The issues raised by you were duly considered by
forty plus issues, raised by the requestor in two the Competent Authority and the Appellate detailed representations to the said authorities, Authority while deciding the case (relevant on the enquiry proceedings in the charge sheet documents as per the attached list are enclosed). issued in February 2006.(page 11 & 12) 7 Latest mailing addresses and contact details of Competent Authority the CA & AA(mentioned at Sr.No.6 above) Shri A.R.Khan,General (page 12) Manager,(FED),RBI , Mahatma Gandhi Marg,Kanpur-20800 1 Tel: 0512-2305917 Appellate Authority SM K.V.SubbaRao Chief Executive Officer Banking Codes & Standards Board of India C-7, 4th Floor, RBI Bldg, BKC,Bandra (East), Mumbai -400051 Tel No.022-26573715 8 The manner in which the aforesaid two The issues raised by you were duly considered by Page 3 of 6 representations to the CA and the AA were the Competent Authority and the Appellate dealt with and investigated.(page 12) Authority while deciding the case.
9 Information on the status of investigation in to A copy of UO.CO.DAPM No.Vig.631/
the complaint made to CVC and a copy of 14.01.022/2008-09 dated December 30, 2008, Is
Bank CVO's re ply to the CVC.(page 12) enclosed.
10 Copies of all earlier complaints filed by Coop What is being sought is third party information
Workers' Union in UBD, RBI, Lucknow. If received in fiduciary capacity which is exempt from
any material evidence was available with disclosure under Section 8(1) (e) of the Act.
management of corruption by RBI officers to
warrant an investigation from vigilance angle.
(page 13)
11 Copy of the approving authority's noting on A copy of office note dated Dec 11, 2006 approved
the investigation report by Shri M K Dutta, by the regional Director on December 22, 2006
DGM dated September 29, 2006.(page 14) based on which the relevant scrutiny note of Sh MK
Dutta was forwarded to Central Office, Urban
Banks Department and a note recorded by Shri
RamLal, Deputy Manager which forms part of the
above enclosed
12 Latest complete mailing addresses and contact Shri M.K.Dutta details of Shri M K Dutta, DGM(page 14) Dy,General Manager(RPCD) RBl Station Road,Panbazar P.S. No.120,Guwahati-781001 Tel: 0361 -2600504 13 Legal status of the so called Uttar Pradesh Information is not available.
Coop Workers' Union, a copy of its recognition by relevant authority, a copy of its bye laws/constitution duly attested by the registering/recognizing authority, a copy of its latest election results, a full list of its members/office bearers-with affiliation as on the date of complaint, an attested copy of resolution or decision-authorizing any or some members of the team of such office bearers or some persons to sign the complaint under reference and stating the reasons as to in what manner is the UP CO-Op Workers Union is interested in the affairs of RNSBL, the complete names/addresses/office positions/tel. Nos. Of the signatories of the complaint.
Whether the signatories had written the complaint from the alleged organization platform of the Uttar Pradesh Co-op Workers' Union or in their private capacities as members of the public?(page 15-16) 14 What are the enabling instructions which make The show cause letter dated June 19, 2008 issued to it mandatory for inspecting official either to you contains the phrase' definitely been part of the inspect an Extension Counter or go in search inspection report' quoted by you in your query. for a coma flagged address of an There are no instructions available for such an unauthorized location or even generate usage and the phrase was used by the investigation information when there is none available.(page officer in his report dated September 29, 2006
17) (paragraph 3-line 10). No letters/instructions were 15 Copy of such instructions using the words' issued to you to inspect an Extension Counter or go Page 4 of 6 definitely been part of the inspection report' in in search for some address/unauthorized location. respect of the coverage of above explained The show cause was prepared taking into account expenditure aspects of an urban bank, in the observations/comments made by OAPM, inspections under RTI Act ( page 19) - Lucknow office & UBO, Central Office and the 16 Copy of such instructions using the words' investigating officer's report dated September 29, definitely been part of the inspection report' in 2006 as to the shortcomings in functioning of the respect of on the spot reconciliation of share bank which were not reported in the inspection capital account and not resorting to broad report with reference to the financial position as on sample based examination of share linking, in September 30, 2004 by you. In this regard we may inspections under RTI Act (page 21) add the following:
(i) The procedure for selection of branches for inspection is detailed at paragraph 2.12 of the manual for onsite inspection of UCBs(extract enclosed)
(ii) Analysis of income and expenditure over a period of two to three years is envisaged at paragraph 7.25 of the manual for onsite inspection of UCB5 (extract enclosed).
(iii) Examination of other liabilities is envisaged paragraph 4.31 of the manual for onsite inspection of UCBs (extract enclosed ) 17 Copy of such instructions using the words' Examination of other assets is envisaged at definitely been part of the inspection report' in paragraph 5.287 of the manual for onsite inspection respect of 100% coverage such items, in of UCBs (extract enclosed). inspections under RTI Act (page 2) 18 Copy of such instructions using the words' Banks are prohibited from extending or renewing definitely been part of the inspection report' in either secured or unsecured loans and advances to respect of coverage of this aspect, in any directors and their relatives. The procedure to inspections under RTI Act (page 24) critically examine the lending policy adopted by 19 Copy of such instructions using the words' banks for determining whether the bank takes into definitely been part of the inspection report' in account the restrictions placed by the Reserve Bank respect of coverage of such accounts, in is detailed in paragraph 5.49 and 5.56 of the manual inspections under RTI Act (page 25) for onsite inspection of UCBs(extract enclosed).
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Information provided is false, misleading and unsatisfactory. Order of the FAA:
FAA directed that appellant appears to mix up the requests with grievances on the action taken by the RBI and its officers. Most of the statements of the appellant in the appeal are argumentative in nature. Information provided is not misleading.
"Residential addresses of individuals are unquestionably personal' to them and the CPJO was fully justified in refusing to part with the residential address of a retired officer of RBI. The CPIO was also not remiss in his duties when he declined copy of the complaint received by it. Complaints received in confidence give a fiduciary character to the relationship between the receiver and the sender. Freely parting with such documents would also shake the confidence of those who wish to bring to the notice of the public authority something in confidence."Page 5 of 6
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Information provided is obfuscated, untrue, false, misleading and delayed.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Shishir Gupta;
Respondent: Ms. Mini K. Krishnan, Assistant Legal Advisor on behalf of V. S. Das, the then PIO on video conference from RBI Studio;
The appellant has submitted a 29 page RTI application and the PIO states that they tried to frame the queries that were being sought by the appellant. The Commission states that such an RTI application is not a very responsible action but is trying to frame the key queries which the Appellant is seeking:
1- As regard the ETAH Corporative Bank inquiry the Appellant had given a 40 query representation. If there is any evidence on record to so that this was considered by the competent authority and Appellate Authority this should be provided. If there is no record about this, it should be stated.
2- The Appellant is seeking information about the action taken on these representations to the RBI Governor. The PIO states that certain information has been provided. The Appellant offers to provide the date on which the representations alongwith the soft copies of the representations which were made and based on this the PIO will provide the information to the Appellant about action on these representations. The Appellant will sent this list to the PIO by email to [email protected] before 30 May 2012. 3- The Appellant has given complaints against 08 officers to CVC. The Respondent states that they are not available to identify which complaints Appellant is referring to. The Appellant is directed to sent the list of complaints alongwith the soft copies of the complaints to the PIO by email to [email protected] before 30 May 2012.
The Appellant states that he wants to deal with all the queries mentioned in the 29 page RTI application. Providing information of this nature would completely divert the resources of the Public Authority. The Appellant appears to be wanting to ask a very large number of queries which would divert the resources of public authority. In view of this the Commission suggests that the Appellant should afresh RTI application with specific information which could be a matter of records.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The Commission directs the Appellant to provide the list of representations with date as directed above to the PIO before 30 May 2012 and the PIO will provide the information to the Appellant before 20 June 2012 of receiving the list from the Appellant. This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 14 May 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PG) Page 6 of 6