Central Information Commission Judgements

Shri.Manju vs Corporation Bank on 29 August, 2011

Central Information Commission
Shri.Manju vs Corporation Bank on 29 August, 2011
                       CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                           Club Building (Near Post Office)
                         Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                     Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001401/SG/14317
                                                            Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001401/SG
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                               :    Ms. Manju
                                             25/20, Tilak nagar
                                             New Delhi- 110018

Respondent                              :    Mr. P. Shivaram Bhat
                                             PIO & DGM
                                             Corporation Bank,
                                             10th Floor, HT House,
                                             K. G. Marg, Connaught Place,
                                             New Delhi

RTI application filed on                :    16/08/2010
PIO replied on                          :    23/08/2010
First Appeal filed on                   :    03/09/2010
First Appellate Authority order on      :    14/09/2010
Second Appeal received on               :    29/09/2010

Sl.                         Query                                               Reply of PIO
1. Please provide information in respect to Mr. Upender         Concerned PIO replied
    Kumar who is working as a clerk in Corporation bank,        Query1 - that he has no knowledge
    C. G. O Complex Branch, New Delhi.                          regarding his association with CBI.
       1. Date from which he has been associated with
           CBI.                                                 Query 2- that the details for the raids are not
       2. In how many cases he has been associated with         available.
           CBI in raids. Kindly provide the particulars as
           to the dates, departments & the officers that        Query 3 & 4 - that any assistance as to man
           have been trapped in the cases.                      power as sought by CBI time to time
       3. Whether the written permission granted to the         wherever possible has been catered by
           official by the Bank as and when his services        Branch head to the CBI Authority.
           have been utilized by the CBI. Kindly provide
           the complete particulars for the same.               Query 5- that the details regarding the
       4. Kindly provide how many times he has gone to          movements for CBI work has not been
           CBI during bank time or after bank time, the         maintained by the office.
           complete particulars of the visit of official with
           date and time.                                       Query 6- There are no incentives available
       5. Whether the official made an entry in the             to the employees whose services have been
           moving register or any such type of register         availed from the Bank/ CBI .
           maintained by the bank at the time of leaving of
           leaving the bank for CBI work.
       6. Whether any incentive was paid to the official
           for performing the CBI work.
       7. Whether the incentive has been paid by the
           bank or CBI.


Grounds for the First Appeal:
Reply of the PIO was dissatisfactory.
 Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
According to the FAA's order the concerned PIO has already replied to all the queries hence appeal
dismissed.

Ground of the Second Appeal:
Information furnished by the PIO & the FAA's order was dissatisfactory.

Relevant Facts

emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Ms. Manju;

Respondent: Mr. P. Shivaram Bhat, PIO & DGM;

The PIO has given the information available on the records. The Appellant alleges that Mr.
Upendra Kumar has been goingon CBI, but has produced no evidence of this before the Commission.

Decision:

The Appeal is disposed.

The PIO appears to have provided information available on the records.
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
29 August 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number. (AM)