Central Information Commission
Complaint No.CIC/PB/C/2008/00894, 00899-SM, CIC/SM/C/2009/00064
dated 10.07.2008 & 01.11.2008
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (18)
Dated: 10 June 2009
Complainant : Shri Vinod Kumar Sethi
Respondent : PIO, Zonal Office, UCO Bank, Bareilly
The Complainant was present.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:-
(i) Shri A.R. Arya, PIO, UCO Bank, Bareilly
(ii) Smt. Rita Vohra, PIO, UCO Bank, New Delhi
There are three different cases registered in the name of the
Complainant, all against the CPIO of the same Public Authority. We have,
therefore, clubbed all the cases together for hearing. The brief facts of these
cases are as under.
2. In three different applications, two of these dated 10 July 2008 and
one dated 1 November 2008, the Complainant had wanted to know about
various information in connection with the disciplinary proceedings instituted
against him and the consequent action taken by the Bank. Except in the case
of his application dated 1 November 2008, he received no response or
information from the CPIO. In reply to his application dated 1 November
2008, the CPIO had, in his letter dated 9 January 2009, informed him that his
review petition had been placed before the reviewing authority and that he
would be intimated of his decision shortly. In none of these cases, the
Complainant had preferred any appeal before the first Appellate Authority.
Instead, he has sent all these complaints to the CIC directly.
3. During the hearing, the Complainant was present in person and made
his submissions. The Respondents were also present and made their
CIC/PB/C/2008/00894, 00899-SM, CIC/SM/C/2009/00064
submissions.
4. The Complainant told us that as far as his Review Petition is
concerned, he had also received a reply and would not like to pursue the
matter. The Complainant had asked for the following information:-
(i) details of payment made to the Advocates for obtaining legal
opinion and the sanction thereon;
(ii) report/opinion given by the Advocate on the cases relating to fake
guarantee;
(iii) name of the person who had seen the original document, titled ME-
14 while certifying it as a true copy;
(iv) If the Bank was in possession of the original ME-14 at any time; and
(v) a copy of the first stage advice given by the CVO to the Disciplinary
Authority in connection with the charge sheet dated 29 March 2005.
5. Out of the five pieces of information sought by the Complainant, the
Respondents informed us that some replies had been sent to him in the past
partially providing some information and denying some others. For example,
with regard to his request for the payment details to the Advocate and the
legal opinion tendered by that Advocate, he had been informed that such
information was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the Right to
Information (RTI) Act as it was held in a fiduciary capacity. In the matter of
the document titled ME-14, the CPIO had not given any categorical reply to
him in the beginning. In his reply/comments to the CIC dated 26 May 2009,
however, he had given a detailed account of how the document named ME-14
came to the possession of the Bank and other related details. A copy of this
was handed over to the Complainant during the hearing itself. Thus, what is
left to be given is only the copy of the first stage advice of the CVO to the
Disciplinary Authority. We direct the CPIO to provide to the Complainant a
copy of this within 10 working days from the receipt of this order.
6. The Respondent further submitted that as far as the information
available with them, no legal opinion had been obtained in this matter and
CIC/PB/C/2008/00894, 00899-SM, CIC/SM/C/2009/00064
only the services of a Lawyer had been taken for drafting of certain
documents for which he had been paid his fees. The CPIO shall also inform
the Complainant the exact amount of the professional fees paid by the Bank
to the Lawyer for such services along with the above information.
7. The Complainant brought to our notice that the CIC had, in the Appeal
No. 2069/ICPB/2008, file No. PB/A/2007/1399, ordered on 28 May 2008 that a
copy of the advice of the CVO be provided to the Complainant. In
implementing the Commission’s decision, the CPIO provided him with copies
of some other documents but not the copy of the CVO’s first advice. This is
certainly not a desirable situation. The directions of the Commission must be
carried out in letter and spirit and within the time limit prescribed. Since
the CPIO did not carry out the directions of the CIC in this matter, he has
rendered himself liable for penalty under Section 20 of the Right to
Information (RTI) Act. Before deciding on the quantum of penalty, we would
like him to explain in writing within 10 days from the receipt of this order the
reason for the delay. If we do not receive his reply in time, we will decide on
the penalty ex-parte.
8. With the above directions, this appeal is disposed off.
9. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
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)
Assistant Registrar
CIC/PB/C/2008/00894, 00899-SM, CIC/SM/C/2009/00064