Central Information Commission
File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/001807 dated 12022009
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Dated: 21 July 2010
Name of the Appellant : Shri J K Nehray
5C, Ram Nagar,
Ambala Cantt - 133 001.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Union Bank of India,
HRM Department, Central Office,
239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg,
Nariman Point, Mumbai - 21.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Gupta was present.
2. In this case, the Appellant had, in his application dated 12 February
2009, requested the CPIO to inform him the name of the executive(s) who had
given sanction for his prosecution and also for the copy of the process note
prepared by the officers in the industrial relations department at the Central
office in Mumbai for issuing the letter no. CO/IRD/7204/96 dated 22.11.96(letter
sanctioning prosecution). On not receiving any response from the CPIO within
the stipulated period, the Appellant preferred an appeal on 3 April 2009. The
Appellate Authority disposed of the appeal in his order dated 20 May 2009 in
which he observed that in spite of diligent search, the IR Department could not
trace out any letter bearing the above number. He suggested that the Appellant
should provide some more lead about the said letter so that it could be traced. It
also seems that there was some further correspondence between the CPIO
and Appellate Authority on one hand and the Appellant on the other in this
regard. In the order dated 15 September 2009, the Appellate Authority while
disposing another appeal of the Appellant had stated that Sri VB Naik, Deputy
CIC/SM/A/2009/001807
General Manager(Personnel) had given the sanction for prosecution.
Eventually, the Appellant has approached the CIC in second appeal.
3. We heard this case through video conferencing. The Appellant was
present in the NIC studio at Ambala. The Respondent was not present during
the hearing but turned up later. We heard the submissions of the Appellant. He
submitted that he had been prosecuted in a criminal case for which permission
had been sanctioned by the management of the bank. He wanted to know the
names of the officers who had approved the sanction for his prosecution.
Similarly, he also wanted to get a copy of the process note which had been
prepared in the industrial relations department in the head office of the bank
based on which the letter dated 22 November 1996 had been issued.
4. From the order of the Appellate Authority, it appears that the relevant
records in regard to the issue of the letter no. CO/IRD/7204/96 dated 22.11.96
are no longer traceable in the industrial relations department of the head office
and, therefore, they are not in a position to provide a copy of this to the
Appellant. We would nevertheless like to direct the CPIO to mount a fresh
search for those records and, if found, to provide to the Appellant a copy of the
process note if any such note was prepared. The CPIO shall provide the above
information, if available, within 10 working days from the receipt of this order. In
case, the information is not available for any reason including the non
availability of relevant records, the CPIO shall inform the Appellant accordingly
in a sworn affidavit.
5. It is noted that the CPIO had not responded to the Appellant within the
stipulated period. This calls for imposition of penalty on the CPIO in terms of
Section 20 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Before deciding on the penalty,
we direct the CPIO to appear before us in person or through his representative
CIC/SM/A/2009/001807
on 20 August 2010 at 12.45 p.m. and to explain if he had any reasonable cause
for not providing the information in time.
6. The case is disposed of accordingly.
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/2009/001807