Central Information Commission, New Delhi File No.CIC/SM/A/2010/000832 Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19) Date of hearing : 20 December 2010 Date of decision : 20 December 2010 Name of the Appellant : Shri Dinesh Kumar S/o. Shri Hukum Singh, D16, HIG, Dindayal Nagar1, Moradabad. Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Prathama Bank, Head Office, Ram Ganga Vihar, Phase - II, Moradabad, U.P. The Appellant was present in person. No one was present on behalf of the Respondent.
Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
Elements of the decision:
Section 8(1)(h) CPIO is directed to provide information.
2. The Appellant was present in person. The Respondent was not present.
Although the Respondent had requested for adjournment of the case, we did
not think it proper to adjourn it since the request for adjournment was received
very late and the Appellant had already reported. We heard the submissions of
the Appellant and carefully perused the RTIapplication as well as the
information provided by the CPIO. Out of the six queries made by the
Appellant, the CPIO had provided adequate information against four of them.
However, in regard to his first and fourth queries, the information provided by
the CPIO does not seem to be adequate. For example, he had wanted to know
the basis for computing the total loss caused by his actions. In response, the
CPIO had merely indicated a total financial loss of Rs.37.35 lakhs, but he had
not provided any further details regarding the breakup of this amount.
Similarly, in response to his fourth query, the CPIO had refused to disclose the
copy of the preliminary enquiry report conducted by some officers of the Bank
on the ground that this was exempt under Section 8(1) (h) of the Right to
Information (RTI) Act.
3. The Appellant reported that the disciplinary proceedings were now over
and that he had been terminated from the services of the Bank. In the
background of this, we do not see any difficulty in disclosing the desired
information. Therefore, we direct the CPIO to provide to him within 10 working
days from the receipt of this order (a) the break up of the total financial loss
caused by his actions including any documentary evidence in this regard and
(b) copy of the preliminary enquiry report conducted by certain officers of the
Bank regarding the disputed Current Account No. 02/04.
4. The case is disposed of accordingly.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
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