Rajesh Verma vs State Bank Of India on 8 August, 2019

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Rajesh Verma vs State Bank Of India on 8 August, 2019

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 31.10.2017 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 21.05.2017and first appeal dated 03.07.2017:-

Page 1 of 5

• आपके प ां क KAN/RACPC/2016-17/1431 िदनां क ०७-०९-२०१६ के कालम न. २ म$ िदये गये िववरण (िदनां क ०१.०८.२०१६ को िकये गये िनरी.ण व /रपोट1 काय12थल का फोटो5ाफ की छाया7ित 7मािणत उपल: कराने की कृपा कर$ I

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 21.05.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Kanpur seeking aforesaid information. Having not received any reply in prescribed time from the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 03.07.2017. The CPIO replied on 27.09.2017.

The First Appellate Authority did not pass any order. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 31.10.2017 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 31.10.2017 inter alia on the grounds that the information given by the CPIO was false. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information.

4. The CPIO replied and vide letter dated 27.09.2017 endorsed a copy of the report sought by the appellant.

Hearing on 23.07.2019

5. The appellant and Mr. Ajay Kapoor, Assistant General Manager/CPIO, State Bank of India, RACPC, Kanpur (respondent) attended the hearing through video conference.

Page 2 of 5

Interim Order (28.06.2019) 5.1. The Commission has passed the following directions:-

"5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that respondent had provided misleading information. The appellant stated that the respondent had taken the stand that the inspection was done on 13.08.2016 while the respondent had wrongly prepared the documents showing that the inspection was done on 01.08.2016 and the appellant had been complaining that there was no inspection on 01.08.2016 and respondent was misleading. Besides, the appellant informed that the bank officials were persecuting him as his account was put on hold and cheques were returned/bounced back for no fault.

5.2. The respondent submitted that as per record the inspection was conducted on 01.08.2016. The CPIO could not convince the Bench and reveal the truth about the contradictory reports or evasive reply.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, feels that to know the truth of the appellant and respondent, it is necessary that adequate inquiry may be made into the affairs and truth is revealed. Accordingly, the Deputy General Manager (Business & Operation), State Bank of India, Kanpur is directed that the inspection may be done of the records and it may be ascertained as to whether the claim of the appellant is correct or not. As the allegation of appellant is very serious and he has been making allegations that the CPIO provided false information, the Inquiry Report may be submitted to this Bench within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned and he next date of hearing will be intimated in due course."

Page 3 of 5

Hearing 23.07.2019 5.2. The appellant and Mr. Arvind Gupta, AGM/CPIO and Mr. Arun Gautam, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Kanpur attended the hearing through video conference.

5.3. The appellant inter alia submitted that he was sanctioned a house loan of Rs. 12.00 lacs. He submitted an application dated 01.08.2016 to RACPC Kanpur to release fourth installment of his loan amounting Rs. 2.50 lacs. Thereafter, inspection was done and photographs were taken, but the last installment was not released by the respondent. The appellant further submitted that said loan was taken over by another bank and double interest was paid by him to both the banks.

5.4. The respondent submitted that as per the directions of the Commission, an investigation was done by Shri A. K. Goyal, AGM (Operation) SBI, A.O. Kanpur who had submitted his detailed report dated 20.07.2019 to the Commission. The respondent also submitted that the appellant had some doubt/issue with regard to the date mentioned in the photograph. In this regard, they submitted that after getting the application from the appellant, the concerned officials visited the site and took photographs on 12.08.2016 at the time of visit but did not mention the date on the photograph. Later on the officials put the date as 01.08.2016 through oversight. All the issues of the appellant had been discussed and clarified in details in the said report. No impropriety was done and proper procedure was followed in the appellant's case.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, feels that submissions made by the respondent are reasonable. However, the respondent is directed to provide Page 4 of 5 complete information to the appellant along with the inquiry report made by Shri A. K. Goyal, AGM (Operation) SBI, A.O. Kanpur, within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order. With the above observations and 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:07.08.2019 Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission