CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001449/SG/14421
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001449/SG
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar
23/B Junction Narth Loko Colony
Near wooden pool Cant
Kanpur
Respondent : Mr. Ajay Banerjee
Public Information officer & Chief Manager ,
Bank of Maharashtra
Head office, 150, Lokmangal
Shivajinagar Pune
RTI application filed on : 09/04/2010
PIO replied on : Not mentioned.
First Appeal filed on : 07/06/2010
First Appellate Authority order on : 10/07/2010
Second Appeal received on : 11/04/2011
Information Sought:
1. The letter which was sent to me on 12/12/2008 by the bank, the photocopy of the same was
given to the Branch Manager, Maalroad, Kanpur, did any reply regarding the same was given
to you by the Branch Manager?
2. If the said reply was received, then please provide the copy of the same. If not, provide the
copy of the letter if any reminder letter was sent by you to the Branch or any action taken
against the concerned person.
3. As per the Appellant's sources the Appellant was sent on a forced leave by the then manager,
Mr. Munedre Singh on 15/09/2008 for a week's leave and a person was appointed after me.
You gave assurance about the inspection through a letter and to help the Appellant. Is there no
fault on the part of the Branch Manager?
4. The Appellant's belongs to the weaker and deprived part of the society. The Manager
fraudulently removed him from the job. Why such injustice has been done by the authorities?
5. The Appellant has been thrown out because of caste discrimination. The Appellant is orphan
and now has been thrown out of his job. The Appellant trust the PIO and believes that justice
will be served. The Appellant has been serving the bank from 20/10/2005, does throwing him
out and employing another person falls under the rules and regulations of the Bank? Please
provide details regarding the Rulebook of the bank.
Reply of PIO:
Not mentioned.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
The Appellant did not receive any reply from the PIO even after the expiry of 30 days.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA has directed the PIO to consider the application and supply the information within 15 days
of the passing of the order.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Misleading and incomplete information provided.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Kumar on video conference from NIC-Kanpur Studio;
Respondent: Mr. Ajay Banerjee, Public Information officer & Chief Manager on video conference
from NIC-Pune Studio;
The information has been provided to the Appellant but there has been a clear delay in
providing the information. The PIO states that since the information had to be obtained from Kanpur it
took some time. The Commission warns the PIO that any delay in providing the information would
invite the penal consequences of the RTI Act. The Appellant also admits that he has received the
information.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information available has been provided.
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
06 September 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(DIS)