Central Information Commission
Complaint No.CIC/PB/C/2008/00708-SM dated 07.02.2008
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (18)
Dated: 17 July 2009
Name of the Complainant : Shri Mohan G,
No. 10, Mannikandan Street,
5th Lane, 2nd Floor,
Chennai - 600 021.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Canara Bank,
Head Office, 112 J.C. Road,
Bangalore - 560 002.
The Complainant was not present.
On behalf of the Respondent, a representative of the CPIO was
present.
2. The brief facts of the case is that the Appellant had requested the
CPIO in his application dated 7 February 2008 for some information
regarding the administrative decision on his petition for setting aside his
suspension order. His request was transferred to the CPIO of the Canara
Bank on 13 February 2008. The CPIO informed him on 17 March 2008 that his
request for revocation of suspension was not considered favourably by the
Competent Authority. Not satisfied with this reply, he sent an appeal to the
first Appellate Authority in the Ministry of Finance on 28 February 2008
which that Authority considered in his order dated 17 March 2008 and held
that the Canara Bank was the appropriate Public Authority in this case and
that the Right to Information (RTI) Act did not provide for any remedial
action relating to an administrative decision including those of another
Public Authority. The Appellant has challenged this order in second appeal.
3. The case was heard through videoconferencing. The Appellant was
not present in spite of notice. The Respondent was present in the Bangalore
CIC/PB/C/2008/00708-SM
Studio of the NIC. We heard his submissions. The Appellant has prayed for
setting aside his suspension order. His prayer is outside the purview of the
RTI Act; he can get only the information about the outcome of his
representation to the Authorities and he got it from the CPIO concerned,
namely, that his request was not favourably considered. We are afraid we
cannot help him any more in this matter. Incidentally, the Respondent
informed us that the suspension of the Appellant had since been revoked.
4. The case is, thus, disposed off.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
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)
Assistant Registrar
CIC/PB/C/2008/00708-SM