Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr.Dnyaneshwar V Jachak vs Bank Of India on 8 November, 2011

Central Information Commission
Mr.Dnyaneshwar V Jachak vs Bank Of India 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/2011/002098/15496
                                                                      Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002098
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                                 :          Mr. D V Jachak
                                                     Flat No. 3, Prachi II Apartments,
                                                     Mahanganesh colony,
                                                     Paud Road, Pune-411038

Respondent                                   :       Mr. Satish Chandra,
                                                     PIO & DGM
                                                     Bank of India, Head office,
                                                     2nd Floor, star House
                                                     C-5, G Block, Bandra-Kurla
                                                     Complex, Bandra (e)
                                                     Mumbai-400051

RTI application filed on                 :       08-01-2011
PIO replied on                           :       14-02-2011
First Appeal filed on                    :       18-03-2011
First Appellate Authority order of       :       25-04-2011
Second Appeal received on                :       01-07-2011

 Sl.                  Information sought                                     Reply of PIO
1.     All inter department correspondent within HQ     Copy enclosed.
       in SERIATIM.
2.     Information of dismissed employees from 1st      (ii)& (iii) -- Please note that there are 88 employees
       January, 2001 to 31 December, 2010.              who have been dismissed from Bank's Service in
        1. name of the employee                         Vigilance cases during the period from 01.01.2001 to
        2. date of dismissal                            04.02.2011, comprising of 68 Officers, 14 Clerical staff
                                                        and 6 subordinate category. With respect to the
        3. date of charge sheet                         information on cases of non-vigilance, the desired
        4. Brief description of charges leveled.        information is not readily available at Head Office since
        5 Duration of Enquiry no. of Days.              the exact information are scattered in various Zones of
        6. Finding of enquiry officer.                  the Bank. Further, it is informed that it may not be
        7. Loss incurred to the bank due to charge      possible to collect and provide the information in the
        sheeted employees.                              desired format as it will disproportionately divert the
        8. Date of penalty order.                       resources of Bank.
        9. Penalty given.                               As regards the information on "unauthorized absent"
                                                        asked for at Para.No. ifi of the application, it is informed
        10. Date of appeal                              that action in unauthorized absence cases is taken at
        11. Decision of appeal.                         different levels including Branches and the information
                                                        of all employees who were reported as unauthorisedly
                                                        absent and action taken against them during the last 10
                                                        years is not available at Head Office, and the same needs
                                                        to be collected from all Zones I Branch Offices, which
                                                        would also divert the resources of Bank. Hence, we are
                                                        unable to provide the same.
2.     Information of all employees who were reported Same as above.
                                                                                                   Page 1 of 3
      as unauthorized absent and action taken on them
     from 1st Jan 2001 to 31st Dec 2010.
      1. Name of the employee.
      2. Category of employee.
      3. Duration of absent.
      4. No. of days absent.
      5. Date of Reporting unauthorized absence.
      6. Date of charge sheet.
      7. Duration of enquiry no. of days.
      8. Brief finding of enquiry officer.
      9. Date of Penalty order.
      10. Penalty given.
      11. Date of appeal.
      12. Decision of appeal.
      13. Date of decision.
      14. Whether allowed to resume duties with of
      without disciplinary action.
      15. Brief description of any further litigation.
3.   Provide me copies of all the correspondence         (V) &,(VI ) (VII) .. It may be noted that the queries
     exchanged b/w HO's HRDD & international             raised in this paragraph are not specific, hence we are
     Division and their correspondence with chief        unable to comment on it. The correspondence exchanged
     executive, Kenya from 1st March,2008 to till        between the Bank and its Kenya Branch also involves
                                                         mater of commercial confidence and third party
     date with ref. to Mr. DV Jachak.
                                                         information, and these are otherwise exempted from
                                                         disclosures Under Sec. 8(1) (d) & (j) respectively of the
                                                         RTI Act You may also kindly note that the information
                                                         with respect to Nairobi Branch AJc - M/s Discount Cash
                                                         & Carry Ltd. cannot be furnished as the desired.
4.   Provide me copies of all the correspondence         Same as above.
     exchanged b/w HO's HRDD & international
     Division and their correspondence with chief
     executive, Kenya from 1st March,2008 to till
     date with ref. to Nairobi branch acc. M/s
     Discount cash & carry ltd.
5.   Please provide me the copies of all the
     correspondence exchanged b/w HO's HRDD &            Same as above.
     Vigilance Deptt. And General manager New
     Delhi zone from 1st may 2008 to till date with
     ref to Mr. D V Jachak.
6.   Copies of.                                          Kindly appreciate that it is related to other
         a) Central Bank of Kenya.                       institutions.
         b) High Commission of India in Kenya
         c) I&M Bank ltd. Nairobi.

Grounds for the First Appeal:
The CPIO did not give complete and true information and CPIO did not provide information.

Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The information has rightly conveyed to the appellant by CPIO.

Ground of the Second Appeal:
PIO had not given complete and true information.
                                                                                                  Page 2 of 3
 Relevant Facts

emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Mr. D V Jachak on video conference from NIC-Pune Studio;
Respondent: Mr. I. T. Vel, PIO & Sr. Manager Mr. Satish Chandra, PIO & DGM on video conference
from NIC-Mumbai Suburban Studio;

The PIO has given certain information but is now directed to give the following additional
information to the Appellant:

1- Query-1: The Copy of the note and the complete correspondence requested by the Appellant.

The Appellant claims that with regard to query 2 & 3 the information should be available in the service
termination register in the Head Office of the Bank. He is willing to inspect the relevant records on
28 November 2011 from 10.30AM onwards.

The PIO is directed to facilitate an inspection of the relevant records by the Appellant on 28 November
2011 from 10.30AM onwards at the office of the PIO. In case there are any records or file which the
appellant believes should exist, which are not shown to him, he will give this in writing to the PIO at the
time of inspection and the PIO will either give the files/records or give it in writing that such files/records
do not exist.

Decision:

The Appeal is allowed.

The PIO is directed to provide the information on query-1 as directed above to the
Appellant on 28 November 2011.

The PIO is also directed to facilitate an inspection of the relevant records by the Appellant
on 28 November 2011 from 10.30AM onwards. The PIO will give attested photocopies of
records which the Appellant wants free of cost upto 200 pages.

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