Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2010/000681
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 24 November 2010
Date of decision : 24 November 2010
Name of the Appellant : Shri Prakash Pande,
34215/A, Flat No. 202,
Kanchiguda Station Road,
Hyderabad
Name of the Public Authority : Central Public Information Officer,
Reserve Bank of India,
Department of Banking Supervision,
Central Office, Centre 1, Cuffe Parade,
Colaba, Mumbai 400005
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Unnikrishnan, CPIO, was present.
Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
Decision Notice
Appeal accepted
Elements of the decision:
Directed the CPIO to provide information
2. We heard this case through videoconferencing. The Appellant was
present in the Hyderabad studio of the NIC. The Respondent was present in the
Mumbai studio.
CIC/SM/A/2010/000681
3. We heard their submissions. The Appellant had sought a number of
information regarding the alleged irregularities in the IPO of the UCO Bank.
Between the CPIO and the Appellate Authority, much of the information had
been disclosed. However, the CPIO had not agreed to disclose the names of
the employees and officers found responsible for the alleged irregularities.
During the hearing, the Appellant submitted that until these names were
disclosed, the interested public would not be in a position to take any further
action in the matter and in public interest, this should be disclosed. The
Respondent argued that the names of account holders et cetera should not be
disclosed as the RBI held the information in a fiduciary capacity.
4. After hearing the submissions of both the parties and carefully
considering the facts of the case, we fail to agree with the arguments of the
Respondent. After all, if it is admitted that certain irregularities had been
committed in the IPO and a penalty was imposed by the RBI on the Bank, we
do not see any reason why the names of the officers and employees
responsible for the irregularities should not be placed in the public domain. In
fact, such disclosure would lead to greater transparency and accountability.
5. In view of this, we now direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant within
10 working days from the receipt of this order the names of the officers and
individuals of the UCO Bank and any other organisation/institution whom the
RBI had found to be responsible for the said irregularities in the IPO of the UCO
Bank.
6. With the above direction, the appeal is disposed of.
CIC/SM/A/2010/000681
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/2010/000681