Khem Chand Sharma vs State Bank Of India on 22 November, 2021

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Khem Chand Sharma vs State Bank Of India on 22 November, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 22.02.219 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 02.05.2018 and first appeal dated 01.09.2018:-

(i) मेरे सेवा िनवृ के समय सोसाईटी के ऋण के बकाया प मेरे खाते पर हो िकस आधार पर लगाया गया I ा बक को सोसाईटी से कोई प ा आ था कृ ा इस प की ितिथ बताय I Page 1 of 6

(ii) १ के संदभ म सोसाईटी का प बक को िकस ितिथ को ा आ था अगर ये मेरी सेवा िनवृित की ितिथ से पहले ा आ था तो आपने इस पर तु र करवाई ों नहीं की I

(iii) सोसाईटी से प की ा एवम मेरे खाते पर हो लगाने के बारे म बक ने ा मुझे िकसी प के मा म से सूिचत िकया गया यिद हाँ तो कृ ा इस प की एक ित मुझे दी जाये I

(iv) बक ने माच २००४ से सेवा िनवृित तक सोसाईटी के ऋण की कटौती ब कर दी इस संदभ म सोसाईटी ारा िक़ ब करने के िनदश की ित उपल कराई जाये I

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 02.05.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Chandigarh, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 11.05.2018 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 01.09.2018 The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 04.10.2018 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 22.02.219 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 22.02.2019 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 complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 11.05.2018 gave point-wise reply wherein it was informed that the appellant's account was put on hold in compliance of the order dated 13.05.2015 of liquidator of Delhi Chandigarh Circle Cooperative Society. The FAA vide order dated 04.10.2018 directed the CPIO to provide proper reply on point no. 4 of the RTI application within 15 days. In compliance of the FAA's order, the CPIO, Page 2 of 6 Chandigarh vide letter dated 16.01.2019 informed that records related to the query no 4 of the RTI application was destroyed as per the banking rules.

Hearing on 11.05.2021 4.1. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Ranbir Singh, AGM & CPI, SBI, Chandigarh attended the hearing through audio conference. Interim order dated 16.07.2021 4.2. The Commission has passed the following observations and directions on 16.07.2021:-

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observed that reply given by the respondent was evasive and incomplete. The appellant's account was put on hold on the basis of a letter and the appellant has every right to get this document. Moreover, the respondent had expressed their inability to provide the information sought against point no. 4 of the RTI application on the ground that it was destroyed. However, they failed to provide any document to substantiate his claim. In view of this, the Commission feels that proper and complete information has not been provided even after lapse of around three years from the date of filing of this RTI application. Hence, Shri Vinod Dhar, the then CPIO and Shri Ranveer Singh, the present CPIO are show caused as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against each of them. The present CPIO is given a responsibility to serve a copy of this order as well as show cause notice to the then CPIO and secure his written explanations. All the written explanations (from both the CPIOs) must reach the Commission within three weeks. Meanwhile, the respondent is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide complete revised information/reply to the appellant, within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order."

Page 3 of 6

Hearing on 05.10.2021

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Ranbir Singh, the then CPIO, Shri Vinod Dhar, Assistant General Manager, Shri Satyavi Chauhan, Branch Head and CPIO and Shri Jarnail Singh, Chief Manager and ACPIO, State Bank of India, Chandigarh, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought from Point no.1 to 3 was available in the Branch record and was duly provided to the appellant. However, information regarding point no.4 could not be provided as the same was not available in the Branch record as Sh. Khem Chand Sharma was posted at Zonal Office of the Bank at Chandigarh at the relevant time regarding which information was being sought by him. In view of this, the then CPIO transferred the application under RTI to the concerned CPIO at Zonal Office Punjab, Chandigarh who had sent a reply to the applicant vide letter dated 06.08.2018. They further submitted that incompliance of the order of the Commission, they again searched the records thoroughly but could not find the document sought on point no. 4 of the RTI application. They tendered unconditional apology for the inconvenience caused to the appellant as well as the Commission and requested to drop the show cause notices issued against them.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that the respondent submitted written explanations in response to the show cause notices. It may be noted that the respondent claimed that the documents sought against point no. 4 of the RTI application pertaining to the year 2004 were weeded out and in absence of the documents which were not part of their record; they could not furnish the information. They also informed that as per their record retention policy, they were under obligation to preserve the records only up to 10 years. In view of this, the respondent is directed to file an affidavit, in the Commission, to that effect and affirm that the document sought against point no. 4 of the RTI application was not available on their record. A copy of the affidavit may also be provided to the Appellant. Further, there appears to be no mala fide on part of the Page 4 of 6 respondent to withhold the information sought deliberately. Therefore, explanations furnished by the respondent are reasonable. In absence of mala fide on the part of CPIOs, it would not be appropriate to take action under provisions of section 20 of RTI Act. Therefore, the show cause notices against Shri Vinod Dhar, the then CPIO and Shri Ranveer Singh, the present CPIO, are hereby dropped. Accordingly, 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: 22.11.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 5 of 6 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO:

STATE BANK OF INDIA SME BRANCH, SCO 43-48, SEC. - 17B, CHANDIGARH - 160 017 THE F.A.A, GENERAL MANAGER (NW-1), STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, SEC. - 17A, 2 / 3 CHANDIGARH - 160 017 CPIO :

1. Sh. RANVEER SINGH (C.P.I.O) STATE BANK OF INDIA, SME BRANCH, SCO 43-48, SEC. -

17B, CHANDIGARH - 160 017

2. Sh. RANVEER SINGH (C.P.I.O) STATE BANK OF INDIA, SME BRANCH, SCO 43-48, SEC. -

17B, CHANDIGARH - 160 017 (for forwarding to the then C.P.I.O Sh. VINOD DHAR) SHRI KHEM CHAND SHARMA Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission