Sanjeev Mehndiratta vs State Bank Of India on 25 July, 2020

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Sanjeev Mehndiratta vs State Bank Of India on 25 July, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 29.08.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 12.10.2017 and first appeal dated 19.03.2018:-

Page 1 of 5

(i) Copy/text of circular instructions of approved categorization of Branch Managers /Branch Head incumbency and other positions of Secunderabad (Telengana), Mid Corporate, Hyderabad branches and positions in MD Sectt. Head Office, Patiala of erstwhile State Bank of Patiala (e-SBP) applicable on 01.12.2013 and 01.12.2014.

(ii) Actual number of officers posted (scale/grade wise) against approved strength as per circular instructions of categorization as on 01.12.2013 and 01.12.2014 of both these branches and MD Sectt. of e-SBP on these respective dates mentioned in para 1. Also provide detail of their promotion to next scale in the year 2014 if any and were remain posted till January, 2015.

(iii) Any fresh addition/posting of Scale III or IV in Secunderabad branch in the year 2015.

(iv) New MMGS III officers posted/transferred to Mid Corporate, Hyderabad Branch of e-SBP in 2014. Detail of their last two postings along with guidelines and time gap of posting the officer in same branch where he/she worked earlier.

(v) Last AGM posted in MD Sectt as PS to MD of e-SBP. Date of his/her joining in MD Sectt. His/her designation at the time of joining MD Sectt.

Date of his/her promotion to AGM and date of his/her transfer from MD Sectt.

(vi) Copy of circular instruction vide which PS to MD position was upgraded to AGM (SCALE-V) as per categorization approval.

Page 2 of 5

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 06.09.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State bank of India, Local Head Office, Chennai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 12.10.2017, and 16.02.2018 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with this, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 19.03.2018. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 24.04.2018 disposed of the first appeal. In compliance of FAA's orders, the CPIO further replied on 2.5.2018. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 29.08.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 29.08.2018inter alia on the grounds that the 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, Chandigarh, vide letter dated 12.10.2017 replied on point nos. 1, part of 2, 5, and 6 of the RTI application and for point no. 2 to 4 transferred the RTI application to the CPIO, Local Head Office, Amravati. The CPIO, Amravati further transferred the RTI application to the CPIO, Hyderabad, on 17.10.2017. The CPIO, Hyderabad, vide letter dated 16.02.2018 denied the information stating that the same was not available at their office. The FAA vide order dated 24.04.2018 directed the CPIO, Hyderabad on point nos. part 2 and 4 to transfer the application to the CPIO, Chennai Local Head Office as the documents and files might be available with the Chennai Circle. The FAA on point no. 3 of the RTI application directed the CPIO to re-examine the application and furnish the available information to the appellant. Accordingly, the CPIO, Secunderabad vide letter dated 2.05.2018 furnished information on point no. 3 of the RTI application. Further in compliance of the order of the FAA, the CPIO, Hyderabad, vide letter Page 3 of 5 dated 02.05.2018 transferred the RTI application for query on point nos. 2 (part) and 4 of the RTI application to the CPIO, Chennai.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri TV Mohan, Asstt. General Manager & CPIO, State Bank of India, Hyderabad attended the hearing through audio conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had received the information except on point nos. 2, 3 & 4 of the RTI application. He contended the despite the directions of the FAA to provide the information on point no. 3 of the RTI application, the respondent did not furnish information him till date.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had already furnished point-wise reply/information on point nos. 2 to 4 of the RTI application vide letter dated 16.02.2018 and 02.05.2018. They further submitted that State Bank of Patiala had been merged with SBI during the financial year 2017-18 and the information regarding approved strength and actual strength at Mid Corporate branches of e-SBP in Hyderabad & Secunderabad for the period 01.12.2013 and 01.12.2014 was not available with them, hence, it could not be given to the appellant. However, they requested the Commission to grant some time to search the records and for providing proper reply/information to the appellant.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, notes that reply given by the respondent is vague and incomplete. The respondent failed to justify as to why the information sought was not available with them. It may not be out of place to mention that record keeping and proper maintenance of files is a key function of the public authority. In view of this and acceding to the request of the respondent, the respondent is directed to search the records thoroughly and provide the revised Page 4 of 5 information/reply on point nos. 2 to 4 of the RTI application, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, within four 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: 13.07.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

STATE BANK OF INDIA PREMISES & ESTATE DEPTT., LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, BANK STREET, KOTI, HYDERABAD - 500 095 THE F.A.A, & GENERAL MANAGER(NW-I), STATE BANK OF INDIA, 5TH FLOOR, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, BANK STREET, KOTI, HYDERABAD - 500 095 SANJEEV MEHNDIRATTA Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission