Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/C/2010/000348
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 4 August 2011
Date of decision : 4 August 2011
Name of the Complainant : Shri Ravi Kumar
C/o. Lal Babu Singh
Mohalla Shivpuri,
Vaishno Path, Beur Road,
Post - Anisabad, Patna - 2.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, UCO Bank,
Head Office, Personnel Services
Department, DD Block, Sector - 1, Salt
Lake, Kolkata - 700 064.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri A.C. Slath, CPIO was present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. In the CIC order dated 29 June 2010, the CPIO had been directed to
provide the desired information within a certain time limit and also to explain the
reasons for not having provided any information at all within the stipulated
period.
3. We took up this case for hearing today. The present CPIO of the bank
appeared before us. He submitted that around the time the RTI application had
been received in this case, the bank was not very clear if the marks secured in
CIC/SM/C/2010/000348
the examination for recruitment of probationary officers should be disclosed and
that it had taken up with various authorities like the IBA for soliciting their views
on the subject. He further informed that, finally, the desired information was
sent on 18 March 2010. In support of his submissions, he showed us the copies
of the correspondence made between the bank and the IBA as well as the
opinion given by the legal department of the bank. Very interestingly, both the
IBA and the legal department of the bank had advised the then CPIO to
disclose the information. Even then, instead of disclosing the information, the
bank decided to consult the CIC for its opinion in the matter. The bank should
have known that the CIC is not a consultative body and was not supposed to
tender advice or guidance in the matter of what information is to be disclosed in
a particular case. All through such correspondence and consultation, the CPIO
never thought it necessary to apprise the information seeker in any manner.
Thus, it is a clearcut case of flagrant violation of the provisions of the Right to
Information (RTI) Act and deserves to be dealt with in terms of Section 20(1) of
that Act.
4. The present CPIO informed that he took over much after the RTI
application was filed and was not responsible for providing the information in
this case. Therefore, we would like to hear the explanation of the officer who
was the CPIO at the relevant time and any other officer of the bank who was
supposed to provide the desired information to the then CPIO for onward
transmission to the information seeker before we decide on the penalty.
5. On scrutinising the information provided by the CPIO in his 18 March
2010 communication, we noted that while the marks secured by the information
seeker in the said examination had been given, the minimum cutoff marks as
CIC/SM/C/2010/000348
desired by him had not been provided. However, the CPIO submitted that those
cutoff marks were communicated to the information seeker in a subsequent
communication dated 20 July 2010. Thus, in a sense, the information seeker
finally received the full information nearly 9 months after he sent his RTI
application.
6. We direct the present CPIO to forward a copy of this order to the then
CPIO and any other officers considered responsible with the further direction
that that officer or those officers, as the case may be, must appear before the
Commission (Room No. 306, 2nd Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi) on 17 August 2011 at 11.30 a.m. and explain the reasons for not
providing the information in time. They must note that if they fail to provide any
reasonable explanation, we will proceed to impose the maximum penalty
without giving any further opportunity of hearing.
7. The cases disposed off accordingly.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief 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)
Deputy Registrar
CIC/SM/C/2010/000348