Amrita Priyadarsini Patro vs Union Bank Of India on 11 August, 2022

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Amrita Priyadarsini Patro vs Union Bank Of India on 11 August, 2022

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 10.06.2020 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 06.03.2020 and first appeal dated 05.05.2020:-

(i) The appellant was working as Branch Manager in Union Bank of India, Koraput Branch, Odisha. She made the best business and profit but the old rivalry between Sanjay Behra, Ex Branch Manager, Koraput Branch and her father took her to unrest as he poisoned her bosses, after her transfer. They have chargesheeted her and dismissed her with an allegation of loss of Rs. 2.05 crores. But now they gave an affidavit that actual loss is Rs. 33.33 lakhs including a mortgage loan of Rs. 23 lakhs to her family against mortgage of property value of Rs. 1.50 crores sanctioned by Regional Head remaining amount is in Mudra Loan duly secured by an insurance scheme called Page 1 of 4 CGTSMU. The appellant is a young lady and joined as probationary officer in Goa and was transferred in 2016 to Koraput. The branch records shows zero loss and an affidavit given to High Court by Bank Council on the basis of Koraput Branch letter shown a loss of Rs. 33.33 lakhs including her family mortgage loans. Its a clear cut harassment meted out to her. Kindly intervene into the matter.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 06.03.2020 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Union Bank of India, Odisha, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 22.04.2020replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 05.05.2020. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 14.05.2020 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 10.06.2020 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 10.06.2020inter 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 22.04.2020 and the same is reproduced as under:-

"We would like to draw your attention towards the FIR bearing No. 130/2018 dated

05.06.2018 filed with Koraput Police Station. In the said FIR under point no. 9, particulars of properties of interest it is mentioned as Rs. 2,05,50,000/- and under point no. 12 it is mentioned as fraud of cash of about Rs. 2,05,50,000/-. Nowhere in the said FIR loss of Rs. 2.05 crores is mentioned. Further the details of the account involved has been informed to you vide Memorandum Ref. No. RO/SBP/HRMD/254/18 dated 31.03.2018."

The FAA vide order dated 14.05.2020 agreed with the views taken by the CPIO.

Page 2 of 4

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Seetaram Padhan, Chief Manager, Union Bank of India, Sambalpur attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant sought information regarding the loss of Rs. 2.05 crore as mentioned in the FIR bearing No. 130/208 dated 05.06.2018. They further submitted that nowhere in the FIR loss of Rs. 2.05 crores was mentioned. Merely the value of properties of interest was mentioned as Rs. 2.05 crore. It was further submitted that details of the account involved in the fraud had already been provided to the appellant.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that due reply was given by the respondent vide letter dated 22.04.2020. Perusal of the RTI application reveals that the appellant had not sought any specific information from the respondent. However, the respondent during the course of hearing submitted that they had provided the information regarding account involved in the fraud as stated in the RTI application. Moreover, the appellant neither filed any written objection nor presented herself before the Commission to controvert the averments made by the respondent and further agitate the matter. Hence, the submissions of the respondent were taken on record. The Commission is of the view that there is no public interest in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सरु ेशचं ा) Information Commissioner (सच ू नाआयु ) िदनाक ं /Date: 08.08.2022 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममतू $) Dy. Registrar (उपपजं ीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:

THE CPIO:

UNION BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, BALAJI MID TOWN, BUDHARAJA, SAMBALPUR, ODISHA-768004 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FIELD GENERAL MANAGER ROYAL SQUARE BUILDING, ABOVE FIRAYALAL NEXT ARGORA CHOWK, RANCHI, JHARKHAND-834002 MS. AMRITA PRIYADARSINI PATRO Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission