CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001626/SG/14594
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001626/SG
Appellant : Mr. R Ganesh,
312, Ramana Nagar,
Perumalpattu,
Chennai-602024
Respondent (1) : Mr. A. C. Slath
PIO & General Manager
UCO Bank, Head Office
Personnel Department, 3rd Floor,
DD Block, Sector 1,
Kolkata-700064
(2) : Mr. Samiram De
Chief Officer
UCO Bank, Zonal Office
328, Thambu Street,
Chennai - 600001
RTI application filed on : 12/08/2010
RTI Application Transferred on : 24/08/2010
PIO replied : 13/08/2010 & 20/09/2010
First Appeal filed on : 31/08/2010 & 28/09/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 28/09/2010
Second Appeal filed on : 11/10/2010
Sl. Information Sought
1. How many cases of disciplinary cases have been taken in the bank since 2000 in all cadres including
executives?
2. In which, How many have been punished?
3. In which, How many have been referred from place to place on account of punishment?
4. Details of individual persons disciplinary cases have been taken since 2000?
5. Among the above, details of individual persons who have been punished since 2000?
6. An officer from International Banking Branch, Chennai was dismissed from service for using the
password of other officer. Other persons associated in this matter were left. How many of such cases
where the main person only is punished others left free without any punishment?
Reply of PIO:
1. As from Query Nos. 1 to 5 information not available.
2. Regarding Query No. 6 is vague, hypothetical and not specific. (Reply on page 11)
The requested information fall under Section 8(1)(j) of The RTI Act of 2005 thus exempted.
Grounds for First Appeal:
The information sought doesn't fall under exemption and the subject of the application was very well
covered under The Right to Information Act, 2005
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
The Information Sought by the Appellant falls under the domain of Section 8(1)(i),(j)&(h) of The Right to
Information Act, 2005 hence PIO reply was reiterated by FAA.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant Alleges that his case doesn't fall within the Exemptions as no third party or personal
information is sought only that information which relates to disciplinary matters is sought and therefore
not exempted.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. R Ganesh on video conference from NIC-Chennai Studio;
Respondent (1): Mr. A. C. Slath, PIO & General Manager on video conference from NIC-Kolkata Studio;
Respondent (2): Mr. Samiram De, Chief Officer on video conference from NIC-Chennai Studio;
The appellant had sought certain information and from the working of the queries it appears that
he wanted information about all officers against whom disciplinary cases have been taken by the bank
since 2000 in the entire country. This information is not maintained in this format and hence the PIO at
Kolkata stated that such information was not available. The Appellant states that he would be satisfied if
the information provided to him for query-01 to 05 with respect to Zonal Office Chennai only. The
Commission directs the PIO at Chennai to provide the information to the Appellant with respect to
Chennai Zone.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The Commission directs Mr. Samiram De to ensure that the information as directed
above is directed to the Appellant before 10 October 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
14 September 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (pr)