Central Information Commission
Masti Krishna Mukri vs Syndicate Bank on 19 November, 2020
Author: Suresh Chandra
Bench: Suresh Chandra
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.CIC/SYNDB/A/2018/163591
Masti Krishna Mukri ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Canara Bank (Earlier Syndicate
Bank), Udupi. ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 07.06.2018 FA : Nil SA : 22.08.2018
CPIO : 27.06.2018 FAO : No order Hearing : 16.10.2020
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
SHRI SURESH CHANDRA
ORDER
(17.11.2020)
1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 22.08.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 07.06.2018 and first appeal dated nil :-
• Certified copies of statement of account as per the appellant's charge sheet No.240IPD/IRD/DA-3 dated 16.06.2011.Page 1 of 3
2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 07.06.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Syndicate Bank (now Canara Bank), Head Office, Manipal seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 27.06.2018 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with this, the appellant filed first appeal dated nil. The First Appellate Authority did not pass any order. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 22.08.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.
3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 22.08.2018 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 27.06.2018 replied that the appellant was dealt with departmentally and dismissed from the service of the bank and the same was confirmed by the Appellant Authority. They further stated that the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 25045/2014 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka against the orders of Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority. The Hon'ble High Court, vide its judgment dated 22.09.2017, dismissed the Writ Petition and upheld the Bank's action taken against the appellant.The FAA did not pass any order.
5. Both parties remained absent despite hearing notice having been served to them.
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that the respondent had already replied to the appellant vide letter dated 27.06.2018. Perusal of the record reveals that the appellant was dealt with departmentally and dismissed from the service of the bank and his dismissal was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Subsequently, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka had also upheld the decisions of the disciplinary authority. It may not be out of place to mention that the appellant cannot substitute the departmental inquiry with the RTI. The Commission feels that due reply has been provided to the appellant. In view of the absence of both parties and no written objections having been filed by the appellant, Page 2 of 3 there appears to be no public interest in prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 17.11.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:
CPIO :
CANARA BANK Udupi Regional Office, 1stFloor, Court Road, UDUPI, Karnataka - 576101 (EARLIER SyndicateBank) THE F.A.A, CANARA BANK Udupi Regional Office, 1st Floor, Court Road, UDUPI, Karnataka - 576101 MASTI KRISHNA MUKRI Page 3 of 3