B. R. Nayak vs Syndicate Bank on 19 February, 2021

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

B. R. Nayak vs Syndicate Bank on 19 February, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 22.04.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 24.11.2017 and first appeal dated 19.01.2018:-

 Certified copy of cheque bearing no.300021558735 issued infavor of Sadananda Naik for Rs.15000/- on 17.09.2013.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 24.11.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Syndicate Bank (now Canara Bank), Karwar Main Branch, Karnataka seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 26.12.2017 replied Page 1 of 6 to the appellant. Dissatisfied with this, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 19.01.2018. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 25.01.2018 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 22.04.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 22.04.2018 inter 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 the information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 26.12.2017 replied that the concerned Branch was unable to trace out of the said instrument/cheque due to extensive renovations in the branch premises during 2016. However, they furnished an account statement and confirmation certificate with regard to payment of the cheque. The FAA vide order dated 25.01.2018 directed the CPIO to hold/conduct diligent search in the presence of executive of the Regional Office to trace out the said instrument and furnish a fresh reply within 30 days. In compliance with the order of the FAA, the CPIO vide letter dated 17.02.2018 replied that despite their best efforts the information sought could not be traced.

Hearing on 26.05.2020 4.1. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Vishva NS, Chief Manager & CPIO, Canara Bank, (formerly Syndicate Bank), Agra attended the hearing through the audio conference.

Interim order dated 04.06.2020 4.2. The Commission has passed the following observations and directions on 04.06.2020:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, notes that the reply given by the respondent is evasive and misleading. The bank has to preserve the paid cheque/instrument up-to 10 years as per their record retention schedule. It is noted Page 2 of 6 that the information sought has not been furnished by the respondent even after a lapse of around two and a half years from the date of filing of this RTI application. Hence, the Registry of this Bench is directed to issue Show Cause notices to Shri Vishva NS, present CPIO and Smt. A.J. Shaila, the then CPIO, Canara Bank, (formerly Syndicate Bank), Regional Office, Karwar, Uttara Kannada, as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against each of them. The present CPIO Shri Vishva NS is given a responsibility to serve a copy of this order as well as show cause notice to Smt. A.J. Shaila, the then CPIO and secure her written explanations. All the written explanations (from both the CPIOs) should reach to the Commission within three weeks. Meanwhile, the respondent is directed to provide a revised reply/information to the RTI application within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order."

Hearing on 08.01.2021

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Ram Naik, CPIO, Canara Bank, Dharwad, attended the hearing through the video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he issued the aforesaid cheque bearing no.XXXXXXXX35 in favor of Sadananda Naik for Rs.15000 which was presented twice i.e. 10.09.2013 and 17.09.2013 in the respondent bank. He stated that when the said cheque presented first time on 10.09.2013 the same was returned and a penalty of Rs. 65/- was charged from the account of the payee. He further stated that despite having sufficient balance in his account the cheque was dishonored. Hence, he sought a copy of the said cheque which had not been provided by the respondent despite directions of the Commission in its interim order dated 04.06.2020. The appellant argued that the respondent was under obligation to preserve the cheque up-to 10 years as per their guidelines.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted the appellant was provided with information retarding position of cheque bearing No. XXXXXXXXX35 which was issued in favour of Shri Sadananda Naik for Rs.15000/- as reply to his RTI application on 26.12.2017. They further submitted that copy of cheque as sought by the Page 3 of 6 appellant got misplaced in their Kanrar Main Branch, even after our intensive effort same couldn't be traced but provided the statement of account confirming the realization of cheque. They stated that there was no intention not to part with the instrument sought by applicant, but it couldn't be traceable even after their best efforts and the factual position had been furnished to the applicant. They contended that information sought was not deliberately denied by them as the instrument was not traceable in spite of the best efforts put by the Bank. In view of this, they expressed their unconditional apology for the inconvenience caused to the appellant as well as the Commission and assured that such incident would not recur in future.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, notes that information/document sought by the appellant was not provided by the respondent till the date of hearing. The respondent during the course of hearing inter alia submitted that copy of cheque as sought by the appellant got misplaced in their Kanrar Main Branch, even after our intensive effort same couldn't be traced. In view of this, the respondent is directed to file an affidavit, in the Commission, to that effect and affirm that the information sought by the appellant was not available with them. A copy of the affidavit may also be provided to the Appellant. It is pertinent to mention that as per the record retention schedule the cheque presented to the bank was to be preserved up to 10 years. The respondent failed to explain as to how the aforesaid instrument was got misplaced and whether any responsibility was fixed by the bank against for officials for misplacing of said cheque. Further, the respondent did not submit any weeding out records in respect of the documents sought. The CPIO, being the custodian of the information failed to explain the non-availability of records which indicated not only the violation of provisions of RTI Act but also the non-compliance of the preservation policy/weeding out policy of the public authority. Therefore, the delay caused in this matter reflects the callous attitude of the respondent bank. Moreover, the written explanations given by both the CPIOs were not satisfactory, especially, in respect Page 4 of 6 of the documents not being traceable. The Commission feels that both the CPIOs have caused unreasonable delay and deliberate obstruction of information in this case. In view of the above discussion, mala fide on part of both the CPIOs was established. 6.1. The Commission notes that the negligence of statutory duty as designated CPIOs appears to be deliberate and mala fide is established on part of both Shri Vishva N S, present CPIO and Smt. A.J. Shaila, the then CPIO, Canara Bank, (formerly Syndicate Bank), Regional Office, Karwar, Uttara Kannada, hence, both are found liable as per section 20 (1) of RTI Act. In view of the mala fide attributable to the CPIOs, a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) may be imposed on Smt. A.J. Shaila, the then CPIO and penalty of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) on Shri Vishva N S, present CPIO. The penalty amount of Rs. 10,000/- shall be deducted from the salary of Smt. A.J. Shaila, the then CPIO(in two equal monthly instalments), and amount of Rs. 5,000/- shall be deducted from the salary of Shri Vishva N S, present CPIO, by the Public Authority, paid by way of demand draft drawn in favour of "PAO, CAT", New Delhi, and forward the demand drafts addressed to the Deputy Registrar (CR-II), email: dyregcr2- [email protected] Room No. 106, First Floor, Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi 110067. The first instalment of penalty amount should reach to the Commission by 14.04.2021 and the final instalment should reach the Commission by 14.05.2021. With these directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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



                                                             (Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा)
                                                Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु        )
                                                               दनांक/Date: 19.02.2021
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 :
1. SYNDICATE BANK
Regional Office, Syndicate House,
Main Road,
 KARWAR -581 301


THE F.A.A, Syndicate Bank,
ZONAL OFFICE,
HEAD OFFICE ANNEXE BUILDING,
MANIPAL - 576 104
Powered by




CPIO :
1. THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
CANARA BANK, Hubli Regional Office,
1st Floor, IMA Building, Behind KIMS Hospital,
Ashoknagar Road,
Bailappanavarnagar,
HUBLI, Karnataka - 580 029.
 (for forwarding to
EARLIER SYNDICATE BANK'S
(KARWAR) C.P.I.O Sh. VISHVA
N.S. and the then C.P.I.O


B. R. NAYAK




                                                 Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission