Central Information Commission
File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/001072
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Dated: 5 August 2010
Name of the Appellant : Shri Muzibur Rahman
Qtr. No. NCH B/12, PO SECL,
Gevra Project, Distt - Korba,
Chattisgarh.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, State Bank of India,
Local Head Office,
P.B.No.6, Hoshangabad Road,
Bhopal - 462 011.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Shri K.M. Agarwal, CPIO,
(ii) Shri Singhal,
(iii) Shri G.P. Mahananda
2. In our order dated 20 May 2010, we had directed the CPIO to provide
the desired information and also to appear before us to explain the reasons for
the delay. The case was taken up for hearing through videoconferencing. The
representatives of the CPIO and the Branch Manager who had originally
received the RTIapplication were all present in the Bhopal Studio of the NIC.
We heard their submissions.
3. The fact of the case is that the application had been received in the
Branch on 11 November 2008. The Branch Manager transferred this
application to the CPIO only on 6 January 2009, i.e., much beyond the time
prescribed for such transfer. After having received the application from the
Branch, the CPIO himself took 18 days to send his reply on 24 January 2009 in
CIC/SM/A/2009/001072
which he summarily denied the information. The Branch Manager sought to
explain the delay on his part by stating that he had presumed that this RTI
application had been made by the Appellant on behalf of some customer who
had a grievance against the Bank and since he had redressed the grievance,
there was no need to respond to the RTIapplication. On the face of it, the
information sought in the application seems to be totally not related to any
particular customer grievance. Besides, even if it is assumed that the RTI
application had been made on behalf of some aggrieved customer, the Branch
Manager had no business to sit over the application for more than a month.
Similarly, the explanation on behalf of the CPIO that they started collecting the
information only after receiving the application on 6 January 2009 is also not
tenable because ultimately they decided not to disclose any information. If this
was the conclusion of the CPIO, he need not have waited for 18 days to send
his refusal to the Appellant.
4. Overall, neither the explanation of the Branch Manager concerned nor
that of the CPIO is reasonable or acceptable. It is a clear cut case in which the
RTIapplication was dealt both with apathy and casualness and, therefore,
deserves imposition of penalty.
5. In the background of the above, in exercise of the powers vested in the
Central Information Commission in Section 20(1) of the Right to Information
(RTI) Act, we impose a penalty of Rs.12,500/ on the Branch Manager
concerned (Shri K.M. Aggarwal) who had received the RTIapplication and had
forwarded it 56 days later to the CPIO. It is further directed that this amount of
penalty should be deducted from the salary of Shri K.M. Aggarwal, the then
Branch Manager, in five equal monthly instalments from his salary beginning
CIC/SM/A/2009/001072
from September 2010 and sent to Shri Vijay Bhalla, Assistant Registrar, CIC,
Old JNU Campus by way of Demand Drafts drawn in favour of the PAO, CAT
and payable at New Delhi.
6. We are not imposing any penalty on the CPIO as he received the RTI
application very late but had responded within 30 days thereafter.
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/2009/001072