CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
Opposite Ber Sarai, New Delhi -110067
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001235/SG/15187
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001235/SG
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mrs. Suji. V,
Pangappara.P.O,
Trivandrum-695 581
Respondent : Mr. D. G. Kale
PIO & General Manager
Reserve Bank of India
Customer Service Department
Central Office,
Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg,,
Mumbai - 400001
RTI application filed on : 23/2/2010
PIO replied : No reply
First Appeal filed on : 21/4/2010
Order of First Appellate Authority : No order
Second Appeal received on : 15/4/2011
The following information may be furnished with respect to the complaint No.A 11750/SBI pending
before the office of the banking Ombudsman.
No. Information sought PIO's Reply
th
1. The outcome of the hearing conducted by the Ombudsman on 28 January, 2010 No Reply
may be intimated to the Appellant.
2. A copy of the balance sheet on 29/4/2009 produced by the Manager of the SBI, Same as
ATM Pattom Branch before the Ombudsman at the time of hearing. above.
Grounds for First Appeal :
The Appellant was not satisfied as there was no reply by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority : No Order Grounds for Second Appeal :
The Appellant was not satisfied with the reply of the FAA.
NOTE-The Complainant directly approached to CIC and the FAA was directed to enquire into
allegations made by the complainant and after giving chance of hearing to pass an appropriate order
with a view to ensuring that the desired information is provided to the complainant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mrs. Suji. V. on vide conference from NIC-Thiruvananthapuram Studio;
Respondent: Mr. D. G. Kale, PIO & General Manager on video conference from NIC-Mumbai
Studio;
The PIO states that the RTI application was received on 25/02/2010. The PIO states that the
information was provided to the Appellant on 24/02/2011. It appears that the PIO wanted to ensure
that it could not be said that he took over one year to give the information. The Appellant appears to
have received information available on the records. The Appellant claims compensation for receiving
the information so late.
Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It
may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption thrive
and prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling
of helplessness. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of
undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it. Therefore the award of compensation
for harassment by public authorities not only compensates the individual, satisfies him personally but
helps in curing social evil. It may result in improving the work culture and help in changing the
outlook.
The Commission under Section 19(8)(b) directs the PIO to send a cheque for Rs.2000/- as
compensation for the loss and detriment suffered by the Appellant in receiving the information very
late.
The respondent states that the person responsible for sending the information late was Mr. G.
Jaganmohan Rao the then CPIO & Chief General Manager.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The information has been received by the Appellant. The present PIO Mr. Kale is
directed to ensure that the cheque of Rs.2000/- as compensation is sent to the Appellant
before 30 December 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by Mr. G.
Jaganmohan Rao the then CPIO & Chief General Manager within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information within the
time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the
RTI Act. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which raises a reasonable doubt that
the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate Authority has clearly ordered the
information to be given.
It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being
issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be
levied on him.
Mr. G. Jaganmohan Rao the then CPIO & Chief General Manager will present himself before the
Commission at the above address on 17 November 2011 at 4.30pm alongwith his written submissions showing
cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1).
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the PIO is
directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the Commission
with him. If no other responsible persons are brought by the persons asked to showcause hearing, it will be
presumed that they are the responsible persons.
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 cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Ac.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
17 October 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)(AK)
Copy through Mr. D. G. Kale, PIO & General Manager:
To,
Mr. G. Gaganmohan Rao the then CPIO & Chief General Manager