Central Information Commission
Mr.Sanjay Kumar Rao vs Syndicate Bank on 8 November, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002049/15510
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002049
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Rao,
C/o Devanand Rao,
Bheekam Ahmat Village,
P.O. Bheekam Ahmat,
Gazipur district-UP-233229.
Respondent : Mr. Sripathi M. K.
PIO & AGM
Syndicate Bank
Personnel Department,
Industrial Relations Division,
Head Office:Manipal-576104.
RTI application filed on : 01-12-2010
PIO replied on : 17-03-2011
First Appeal filed on : 21-04-2011
First Appellate Authority order of : --- --- ---.
Second Appeal received on : 21-07-2011
Information Sought:
The appellant want the photocopies of all the documents related to bank's Bisrk Branch, If the files are
not available then what are the reasons of non availability? How the branch's important document come
outside? Why the transfer of all the employees not happened in the Bisrk's Branch related to Rs. 10.00
lacs and Rs. 60,000/-? Why the matter of Circular No. 078-2008 BC-Vig-04/FIC Dated:18-03-2008 not
given to the CBI/CID? Is the copy of FMR-1 and FIR send to Vigilance Department, If not then why?
Why is the cheque book was bought from Vaidpura when the stock had the full requirement of cheque
books? Why Sh. P.K. Sharma was not given the registry of the cheque book 158101-159100, bought from
Vaidpura? Why the customer Sh. Ravindra Singh had been issued the cheque book no. 185101-158110
instead of 9431-9440 by Sh. P.K. Sharma? Please do the observation of evidence No. A-8. Why Sh. P.K.
Sharma issued Cheque book no. 158241-158250 instead of 158251-158260 to Sh. Begraj Yadav? Why the
information officer Sh. Babu Verma, did not sent cheque book of date 23-10-2008 to disciplinary officer
instead of Sh. Manishankar Prasad? Why the issued cheque book creation was not authorized? Why the
officer Sh. P.K. Sharma & Sh. S.P.S. Sisodia, issued the cheque book to the customers as they are not
authorized to do so? Why the mistake done by Mr. P.K. Sharma & Sisodia are imposed to Sh. Manindra
Prasad? Why Sh. Suresh Chander did not stock created the system in respect of cheque book no 108241-
108540? In which evidence that the Information Officer Sh. R.K. Garg proved that the cheque book no.
158241-158250 were stole by Sh. Manindra Prasad as it is clear from A-8 that cheque book no 158241-
158250 were issued by Sh. P.K. Sharma to Thana Ram Mavi. What is the base under which Probing
officer Sh. R.K. Garg proves that the fake signature of Sh. P.K Sharma was done by Manindra Prasad?
Why has all cheques/withdrawals vouchers dated 01/11/2008 not been sent to the writing expert for
certification? Why has the leave application being sent to the expert and why the expert had sent his report
to the Bisrak Department? The statement given by Sh. Shanti Swaroop must be observed. Under which
evidence/document did Probe Officer Sh. R.K. Garg proved that A/c No. 9508's sample signature was
Page 1 of 3
sent by Manindra Prasad? Why Sh. Babu Ram intimidate the branch's employees to change their
statement? Why the probing officer Sh. Ram Babu Verma not sent the required information to bank? It is
proved on given statement of the employees and the customers that Sh. Suresh Chander deposited the
cheques to his O.D.C A/c, but Sh. Ram Babu Verma did not probe the O.D.C A/c of Sh. Suresh Chander,
give the statement of Sh. Suresh Chandra's O.D.C A/c. Sh. Suresh Chander and Sh. Shanti Swaroop, took
Rs. 5000/- as commission from the customers on checking their A/c and offer insurance policy. Why Sh.
Shanti Swaroop said that he lend the money from his relative as he lent the money from the customer
named Sh. Karuna Nithi Sharma, of amount Rs.1 lac? How Mr. Shanti Swaroop had discounted a cheque
of Rs. 2500/- from Malivara Branch as the A/c is closed? Why Sh. Shanti Swaroop give payment to
cheque No. 158249 as he know that the signature of Mr. P.K. Sharma was fake? Why Sh. Shanti Swaroop
pay the cheques which was signatured by Sh. P.K. Sharma? Sh. P.K.Sharma issued a fake car loan of Rs.
300,000/- to Sh. Om Prakash. On opposition to this by Manindra Prasad, he made a D.D and give it to Sh.
Billu Singh without submitting the amount in the A/c. Why did any action not being taken against him?
It is cleared from the documents that the signature of Sh. P.K. Sharma was different in different
documents, why it is so? Appellant is describing a situation that how it is possible that one person is
available on two different places? Why Sh. R.K.Garg not collect evidence when Sh. Manindra Prasad was
issuing them? Why Sh. R.K. Garg and Sh H.N. Vishweshvar not provided the certified copies invited by
Sh. Maniendra Prasad?Why the Probe officer Sh. R.K. Garg publically issued the report? What action was
taken by your department on the case of A/c No.8771.220.4915 whose holder is not alive? Why Sh. P.K.
Sharma passed cheque no. 832475 besides the cheque is considered as out of range? Why Sh. P.K Sharma
uses the password of Sh. Manindra Prasad in between the leave of Sh Manindra Prasad? Why Sh. P.K.
Sharma not passed cheque/withdrawl. Why he used the password of Sh Manindra Prasad? Why S. N.
Visheweshvar dismissed Sh. Manindra Prasad as it is clear from the documents that Sh. Manindra Prasad
is not included in this fraud. Why Sh. Ram Babu Verma took second statement of the employees by
threatening them?
The PIO Reply:
We have examined your Application in detail and observe that you have sought information under 42
items which are directly related to the Disciplinary Action taken by the Bank against Sri. Manindra
Prasad,then Asst. Manager of our Bisrak Branch.
In this connection, we observe that Sri Manindra Prasad has challenged the Bank's action against him
before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad. As such, the information sought by you is subject matter of a
litigation and hence, the matter being sub-judice, we are exempted from providing the same, by virtue of
the provisions of Section 8(1) (h) of the Act.
The above apart, we observe that the information is relating to third part/parties and no public interest is
discernible. Hence, we are also exempted from supplying the information U/s 8(1) (j) of the Act.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply was given to the appellant by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
"No FAA order mentioned/received from/by the Appellant."
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information had been provided by the PIO.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Sripathi M. K., PIO & AGM on video conference from NIC-Udupi Studio;
Page 2 of 3
Some of the Appellant’s queries seek information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and
some do not. The PIO has claimed exemption under Section 8(1)(h) & (j) without justifying how these
exemptions would apply.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information point-wise based on the records to the
Appellant before 10 December 2011. If any of the information is not available this should
be stated.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
08 November 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number. (BK))
Page 3 of 3