Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2010/000494
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 1 April 2011
Date of decision : 1 April 2011
Name of the Appellant : Smt. Pratibha Singhal
5G1, R C Vyas Colony,
Bhilwara - 311 001.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Bank of Baroda,
Regional Office,
Vaishali Nagar,
Anasagar, Ajmer.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Shri M. Tigga, SMC (HR),
(ii) Shri Dinesh Kumar,
(iii) Shri S.D. Sharma
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. In our order dated 17 February 2011, we had given certain directions for
the appearance of the then Branch Manager of the Bhilwara Branch as well as
the staff member responsible for wrongly filing the RTI application resulting in
the consequent delay in the disclosure of information. Today, during the
hearing, all those officials appeared before us. The then Branch Manager (SD
Sharma) submitted that, in the meanwhile, he had retired and was no longer
with the Bank. Besides, he also submitted that although the Branch had
received a communication from Sri Tigga regarding the request of the
Appellant, in view of the voluminous nature of the information sought, it had not
been possible to respond to it quickly, especially, since the month of September
CIC/SM/A/2010/000494
was a busy month for the Branch.
3. The staff member concerned (Dinesh Kumar) also appeared and
explained that the RTI application had been filed in the personal file of the
Appellant, who happened to be an employee of the Bank, as the letter bore a
number which indicated that it should be kept in the personal file. If it is so, it
appears the Bank needs to improve its record keeping specially in regard to the
RTI applications. There must be a separate register for recording the receipt
and dispatch of RTI applications in every office of the Bank and instructions
must be issued to the staff not to mix up RTI applications received from the staff
members with their personal and other service matters.
4. In the light of the above, we do not see any basis for imposing any
penalty on any of these two persons. The then Branch Manager having retired
from the service of the Bank cannot be penalised. The staff member concerned
cannot be held responsible because he was simply following a practice of the
Bank.
5. We would like the CPIO to bring it to the notice of the authorities in the
bank that they must evolve systems for the receipt and dispatch of RTI
applications in various offices of the Bank in such a manner that such
applications are not lost sight of and the desired information is promptly
provided by who so ever holds it within the stipulated period of 30 days. For a
Bank like the present one which otherwise enjoys a good reputation as a
financial institution, it should not lag behind in dealing with its statutory
obligations under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
6. The matter is disposed off accordingly.
CIC/SM/A/2010/000494
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this
Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Deputy Registrar
CIC/SM/A/2010/000494