Posted On by &filed under Central Information Commission, Judgements.


Central Information Commission
Mr.Roshan Lal Goyal vs United Commercial Bank (Uco) on 21 November, 2011
                          CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                           Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
                             Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
                                     Tel: +91-11-26161796
                                                            Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001608/SG/15800
                                                                    Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001608/SG

Appellant                                       :       Mr. Roshan Lal Goyal,
                                                        H.No 560, Old Kasauli Road,
                                                        Kalka-133302, Haryana.

Respondent                                      :       Mr. Ujjwal Kumar
                                                        Public Information Officer & AGM (HR)
                                                        UCO Bank, Head Office-2,
                                                        10 BTM Sarani,
                                                        Kolkata-700001

RTI application filed on                        :       05-03-2011
PIO replied                                     :       29-04-2011
First Appeal filed on                           :       18-04-2011
FAA's Order                                     :       12-05-2011
Second Appeal Filed on                          :       24-05-2011

Information Sought:-
The Appellant filed a RTI application on 05-03-2011
    1) Copy of the letter containing the views of the Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, Chandigarh in response to H.O
        letter No. PSD/DISC/SPS/2010/5157 dated 11-03-2010, should be made available to me.
    2) Complaint number allotted to my letter dated 18-02-2010 and the dated on which the same was entered in
        the complaint register for vigilance cases.
    3) Decision taken by the Board of Directors on my letter dated 18-02-2010 should be provided.
    4) Details of action taken against Mr H.R Mahajan to recover the excess amount claimed by him vide his TA
        Bill dated 5th June, 2006 for Rs 3661/- and excess reimbursement for Rs 744.81/- claimed by him on 1-06-
        2006 while making payment of mobile bill of the mobile phone provided to him by the bank should be
        provided in the following format:
 Amount Recovered Recovery affected on account of TA Bill and/or Mobile Bill Date of Recovery
                         paid on 2-06-2006
    5) Copy of the letter addressed to RBI by UCO Bank as every fraud is to be reported to RBI irrespective of the
        amount.
    6) Certificate from the Zonal Office, Chandigarh that amount of Rs. 495/- excess claimed by Mr. H.R
        Mahajan on 13-01-2006 and account of reimbursement for December, 2006 was recovered from Mr.H.R
        Mhajan on 28-11-2006 along with the photocopies of Debit & Credit card vouchers dated 18-11-2006 for
        Rs.495/- each.
The Appellant had also filed an RTI application dated 02-09-2006, which was termed as not "tenable" by the PIO
and information was refused vide his letter dated 05-10-2006.
The Appellant had asked for:-
    1) The H.O guidelines under which Chief Manager (Mr. H.R. Mahajan) Patiala Branch, monthly stipulated
        limits of conveyance expenses for December 2005 were not reduced.
    2) Why were the payment of Rs. 200 made to Mr. Jasbir Singh worker on consolidated wages on 06-05-2006
        were termed as unauthorized and recovery of Rs. 200 was made by the Appellant on 09-05-2006.

Reply from the PIO:-
Point wise reply was furnished by the PIO
Query NO 1: Copy of letter containing views of Zonal Manager, Chandigarh in response to HO letter No.
PSD/DISC/SPS/2010/5157 dated 11-03-2010- A copy of the same enclosed.
Query No. 2: Complaint No allotted to your letter dated 18-02-2010 and the date of entry in compliant register- it
was numbered but action was taken against it by calling comments of the Zonal Manager, Chandigarh.
 Query No 3: Decision taken by the Board of Directors on your letter- Zonal Manager informed that facts were
misrepresented.
Query No 4: Details of action taken against Shri H.R Mahajan to excess claim by him in TA Bill dated 05/06-06-
2006- Zonal Manager informed that allowance was rightly paid to Mr. Mahajan.
Excess reimbursement of Rs. 744.81 by him on 02-06-2006--The query is vague.
Query No 5: copy of letter addressed to RBI -Not applicable
Query No.6: Certificate from Zonal Officer for Rs.495/- claimed excess on 13-01-2006 by Mr.Mahajan on a/c of
reimbursement for December, 2005-The Query is not specific. Information is not available with us.

Grounds for First Appeal:
No information received from the PIO and thus an appeal to provide the necessary information and
documents.

FAA's Order:-
The FAA stated that the CPIO (Personnel & HR) has already provided the required
information/documents in regard to the RTI application vide his letter HO/HRM/RTI/2011-12/22 dated
29-04-2011. A copy of which was further enclosed.

Grounds for Second Appeal:
Information refused by the PIO and aggrieved by the FAA's order.

Relevant Facts

emerging during Hearing:

The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Roshan Lal Goyal on video conference from NIC-Panchkula Studio;
Respondent : Mr. Ujjwal Kumar, Public Information Officer & AGM (HR) on video conference from
NIC-Kolkata Studio;

The PIO has supplied most the information but is now directed to provide the following
information to the Appellant:

1- Copies of the TA Bills, Journey Tickets and Hotel Bill.

2- Query-3: The respondent states that the board of directors has not taken any action on the
appellant’s letter. The PIO is directed to inform the Appellant accordingly.
3- Query-4: The PIO will provide information whether any action has been taken to claim the
excess reimbursement of Rs.744.81/- for mobile bill paid of 02/06/2006.
4- Query-6: The PIO will provide the specific information whether there is any record or not. If
no record exist this will be stated.

Decision:

The Appeal is allowed.

The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed above to the Appellant
before 10 December 2011

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
21 November 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (pr)


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

8 queries in 0.151 seconds.