Central Information Commission
File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/001401 dated 06012009
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Dated: 29 June 2010
Name of the Appellant : Shri H.R. Anthala
H.No. 2033/1, Vishwakarma Nagar,
Baldev Nagar, Ambala City,
Haryana - 134 007.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, UCO Bank,
Head Office, 10,
Biplabi Trailokya, Maharaj Sarani,
Brabourne Road, Kolkata - 700 001.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Shri C.A.Gupta,
(ii) Shri Sudhir Kumar
2. In this case, the Appellant had, in his application dated 6 January 2009,
requested the CPIO for a few pieces of information regarding both the
employees who had gone to the court against their compulsory retirement and
those against whom disciplinary proceedings had been initiated for violation of
Regulation 21. The CPIO, in his letter dated 2 February 2009, furnished some
information, while denying some others on the ground that it was exempted
from disclosure under Sections 8 (1) (e) & (j) of the Right to Information (RTI)
Act. Against the response of the CPIO, the Appellant preferred an appeal on 18
February 2009. The Appellate Authority, in his order dated 3 April 2009, largely
endorsed the stand of the CPIO but directed him to furnish some more
CIC/SM/A/2009/001401
information. It is against this order that the Appellant has come to the CIC in a
second appeal.
3. We heard this case through videoconferencing. The Appellant was
present in the Ambala studio of the NIC. The Respondents were present in the
Kolkata studio. We heard their submissions. At the outset, the Respondents
argued that the information regarding those employees against whom
disciplinary proceedings might have been initiated for violation of Regulation 21
was never maintained centrally and it would not be possible to provide this
information in the manner the Appellant had sought. In regard to the information
regarding those employees who might have gone to court against their
compulsory retirement from the bank, the Respondents also submitted that
such information was not available at one place and would have to be collected
from all over the bank which would be a very timeconsuming task and could
easily divert the resources of the bank rather disproportionately. As for the last
information, namely, the copy of a particular letter on the authority of which the
charge sheet had been issued against him, the Respondents agreed to look for
the relevant documents and provide a copy to the Appellant.
4. We, therefore, direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant within 10
working days from the receipt of this order a photocopy of the
document/record/order on the authority of which the charge sheet had been
issued to the Appellant.
5. During the course of the hearing, the Appellant drew our attention to the
fact that the Commission had earlier considered three separate appeals filed by
him in the past in its order on 2 July 2008 in which it had directed the CPIO to
provide him with some information. He submitted that no information had been
CIC/SM/A/2009/001401
provided and the order of the CIC remained unimplemented. The Respondents
submitted that the said order of the CIC was fully complied with. In view of this,
we also direct the CPIO to forward a copy of the information which the CPIO
might have sent earlier in compliance of the CIC order dated 2 July 2008.
6. The appeal is, thus, disposed off.
7. 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/SM/A/2009/001401