Central Information Commission
Complaint No.CIC/PB/C/2008/00656-SM dated 10.03.2008
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (18)
Dated: 12 June 2009
Name of the Complainant : Shri Rivan Singh, Jailor, District Jail,
Mathura (U.P)
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Department of Financial Services,
Ministry of Finance
The Complainant was not present.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:-
(i) Shri Anil Kumar Baheti, Manager (Law), SBI
(ii) Shri Pradeep Kumar Modi, Chief Manager, SBI
(iii) Shri H.C. Bajaj, DGM & CPIO, OBC
(iv) Shri D.K. Gupta, DCM, OB
The case in brief is as under.
The Complainant had written to the CPIO in the Department of Economic
Affairs, Finance Ministry, Government of India on 10 March 2008 seeking a few
information regarding the ownership of the State Bank of India(SBI) and the
Oriental Bank of Commerce(OBC). Claiming that he did not receive any reply
within the stipulated period, he complained to the CIC.
2. During the hearing the Complainant was not present. Instead, he has sent
a communication by fax in which he has stated that now the information he had
sought a year back has become irrelevant for him. The Respondent was not
present in spite of notice. Instead, the representatives of the SBI and the OBC
were present on the direction of the Government of India, though the
information sought largely fell in the Government’s domain. It was noted that
the Complainant’s application had been transferred to the Department of
Personnel and Training (DOPT) and the CPIO of that Department had given some
clarification about the public-sector status of the SBI and the RBI in his letter
dated 8 April 2008.
3. We carefully examined the contents of the Complainant’s application.
Basically, he wanted to know if some of these Banks were owned by the
Government of India. Such information is already available in the public domain.
CIC/PB/C/2008/00656-SM
The websites of the Banks clearly mention about their ownership pattern.
Therefore, there is hardly any need for any citizen to ask the CPIO of either the
Government or the Banks to clarify about the ownership of the Banks. The other
item of information sought was regarding the application of the benefits of pay
protection etc to the employees of the nationalised Banks including the SBI and
the RBI joining the Central Government as direct recruits. The DOPT Office
Memorandum dated 8 June 1993 which the Complainant had himself referred to
in his own application gives adequate clarification on this. This OM clearly states
that the Government orders applicable to candidates from Public Sector
Undertakings joining the Central Government would also apply to such
employees of the nationalised Banks including the SBI and RBI joining the
Central Government as direct recruits. In fact, all the information that the
Complainant had sought was already available in the public domain through the
websites of the respective Banks or it was already available to him through the
DOPT OM he had himself quoted in his application.
4. Since the Complainant himself is no longer interested in this information,
we shall give no direction to the CPIO to provide any further information.
However, we would like the CPIO in the Finance Ministry, Department of
Economic Affairs to explain why penalty under Section 20 of the Right to
Information (RTI) Act should not be imposed on him for not providing the
desired information to the Complainant within the stipulated period. If we do
not hear from him within 10 working days from the receipt of this order, we will
proceed to decide on the penalty ex parte.
4. With the above direction, the complaint is 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/2008/00656-SM