CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000652/SG/14722
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000652/SG
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. R. L.Goyal
H.NO.550, Kasauli Road,
Adjacent Punjab Dairy,
Kalka (Distt.Punchkula).
PIN-133302
Respondent (1) : Mr. J. K. Arora
PIO & Dy. Zonal Head
UCO Bank, Zonal Office,
Sector-17-B,
Chandigarh.
(2) : Mr. Sunil Kakar,
General Manager
UCO Bank, Zonal Office,
Sector-17-B,
Chandigarh.
(3) : Mr. R. K. Sharma
AGM
UCO Bank
5, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 18/01/2010
PIO replied on : 20/02/2010
First Appeal filed on : 02/03/2010
First Appellate Authority order on : -------------
Second Appeal received on : 01/02/2011
Information Sought:
Excess Reimbursement of Rs.495/- claimed by Mr. M.R.Mahajan, the then Chief Manager,
UCOBANK, PATIALA MAIN BRANCH on 13.01.2006 on account of conveyance for December
, 2005 and Rs.200/- paid to Mr. Jaabir Singh on 6th May, 2006 which were debited to his cash
credit account on 9th May, 2006.
Provide the details of the action taken by the Personnel Department Zonal Office,
Chandigarh on his letter no CRO/P&D/2006 07/63 along with the photocopies of
the correspondence between Patiala Main Branch and Zonal Office, Chandigarh
and Head Office on the two topics under RTI Act.
Page 1 of 3
Reply of PIO
The query raised at point no.1, 2,3 & 4 of the Appellant's RTI application are not covered within
the definition of information under section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
The information and documents were denied by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Not mentioned.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
1. The demanded documents were denied by the PIO by terming those documents as "Not
covered within definition of information" under section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
2. The FAA did not take any action on his appeal.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. R. L.Goyal on video conference from NIC-Panchkula Studio;
Respondent: Mr. J. K. Arora, PIO & Dy. Zonal Head on video conference from NIC-Chandigarh Studio;
The Appellant has sought copies of four letters of the period 2006 & 2008 and the action
taken on this. The PIO has replied that this is not information as defined under Section 2(f) of the
RTI Act. This has been a completely irresponsible reply. The respondent now states that only one
of these letters is available on the records and other three letters are not available. It appears that
the PIO has not supplied any information about the action taken on these letters either. It is serious
matter that the bank claims that it does not have the letters and it is very evident at the time the
information was provided by its letter of 20/02/2010 the Bank had not claimed that three of the
letters had been stolen/missing.
The Commission directs Mr. Sunil Kakar, General Manager to inquire into the claim theft/loss of
three of the letters after February 2010 and send a report to the Commission and the Appellant
before 20 October 2011.
The PIO states that the then PIO Mr. R. K. Sharma was responsible for refusing to give the
information claiming that it was not information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The Commission directs the Mr. Sunil Kakar, GM to conduct an inquiry into
the theft/loss of the three letters and send a report to the Appellant and the
Commission before 20 October 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of refusing the information by the then PIO Mr. R. K.
Sharma PIO without any reasonable cause.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the then PIO Mr. Sharma is guilty of not
furnishing information without any reasonable cause.
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.
Page 2 of 3
The then PIO Mr. R. K. Sharma will present himself before the Commission at the above address
on 11 October 2011 at 12.30pm 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.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the
Appellant the PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them
to appear before the Commission with him. If no other responsible persons are brought by the
persons asked to showcause hearing, it will be presumed that they are the responsible persons.
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 September 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)DIS
Page 3 of 3