CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2010/01581/SG/14532
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2010/01581/SG
Appellant : Mr. Rama Shankar Gupta,
Allahabad UP Gramin Bank,
DM Colony
Civil Lines, Banda-210210
Respondent : P.I.O. & Bank Manager
Allahabad Bank,
Zonal Office, Hamirpur,
10/379, Ramedi,
Transh, Hamirpur, 210301
RTI application filed on : 06/04/2010
PIO replied : 05/05/2010
First Appeal filed on : 25/05/2010 & 01/06/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 29/07/2010
Second Appeal filed on : 28/11/2010
Date of Notice of Hearing : 00/00/2010
Hearing held on : 00/00/2010
Information sought:
RTI No 1- Information about date of receipt of medical bill of Rs 1833 at zonal office, officers
involved in its disposal with date of disposal, copy of noting sheets copy and rejection reasons.
RTI No 2- Information about request for sanction of HRA 150% its date of receipt officers involved
in its disposal with date of disposal, Tenure of some officers at Zonal Office.
Reply of PIO:
RTI No 1- Bill was received on 11/06/2009, regarding Hospitalization expenses appellant has to submit the
certificate from specialist doctor;
-Name of officers and noting sheets copy cannot be provided as adversely affect interpersonal relationship
of officers.
RTI No 2- application received on 14/03/2009,
-Name of officers and noting cannot be provided as adversely affect interpersonal relationship of officers.
Tenure of officers specified in provided.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Complete information not provided.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
"The appellant has mentioned that the reply of the CPIO is not complete. He has not provided names of
officers involved in the disposal processes & copies of note sheets containing their comments, Moreover,
copies of disposal letters has also not been provided. In the remaining part of the appeal, he applicant has
expressed his grievance, against the Bank for rejection of his Bill for Rs 1833/- & 150% HRA.
The OPIC has submitted his comments on the appeal stating that all the information, sought by the RTI
applicant has been provided. Further, that disclosure of names of officers & their comments may lead to
public acrimony. Moreover information does not relate to any public interest, therefore it was not provided.
Observation
In these cases, CPIO has provided the information as sought by the applicant. However, the note sheet
containing the disposal of the two matters relating to the appellant, as also the names of officers involved
has not been provided. The appellant has also appealed that copies of disposal letters have not been
provided.
During the course of performing their official duties, officers take administrative decision in various
matters, in their official capacity. Individually naming such officers, involved in any particular matter
relating to another officer, may affect inter-personal relationships in an organization. However, decisions are
taken on the basis of rules / guidelines & hence, for the sake of transparency in matters, copies of note
sheets, if any, can be provided.
The CPIO should provide copies of note sheets in the two matters, if any such note sheets exist, along with
copies of the disposal letters to the appellant with in 03 weeks of the receipt of this order.
The appeals are accordingly disposed of."
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Information not provided even after Order of First appellate authority dated 29/07/2010 to the PIO directing
same to be provided within 3 weeks.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
Both the parties were given an opportunity for hearing. However, neither party appeared. From a perusal of
the papers it appears that no information was provided to the Appellant after the order of the First Appellate
Authority. The First Appellate Authority had clearly stated in his order that, “The CPIO should provide
copies of note sheets in the two matters, if any such note sheets exist, along with copies of the disposal
letters to the appellant with in 03 weeks.”
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the complete information as directed by the First
Appellate Authority to the Appellant before 05 October 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO
within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information within
the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement
of the RTI Act. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which raises a reasonable
doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate Authority has clearly ordered
the information to be given. It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1).
A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show
cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 10 October 2011 at 4.30pm
alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated
under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.
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
12 September 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)(RJ)