Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2010/000494
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 17 February 2011
Date of decision : 17 February 2011
Name of the Appellant : Smt. Pratibha Singhal
5G1, R C Vyas Colony,
Bhilwara - 311 001.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Bank of Baroda,
Regional Office,
Vaishali Nagar,
Anasagar, Ajmer.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri M. Tigga, Senior Manager (HR) was
present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. In our order dated 17 January 2011, we had directed the CPIO not only
to provide the information but also to appear before us and explain why no
information had been provided in the first place. Today, during the hearing,
Shri M. Tigga, the officer who was responsible for dealing with the RTI
application, appeared before us and submitted that he had indeed received the
RTIapplication on 20 August 2009 and had promptly written to the Bhilwara
Branch of the Bank on 21 August 2009 calling for the necessary information.
He further submitted that the Branch did not respond to him thereafter and in
the meanwhile, the application had also been wrongly filed in the personal
records of the information seeker instead in the RTIrelated file. In the process,
the RTIapplication did not surface before him for any further action.
CIC/SM/A/2010/000494
3. Obviously, this case has been mishandled resulting in the denial of
information to the Appellant in time. The Branch Manager of the Bhilwara
Branch from whom the information had been sought but who failed to provide
any information in this regard is equally to blame and also the person who
misfiled the application has to share some part of the blame in this case.
Finally, Shri Tigga who, admittedly, was handling this case on behalf of the
CPIO at the time would have to share some part of the responsibility. Now, that
we have heard Shri Tigga, we would also like to hear the explanation of the
then Branch Manager of Bhilwara as well as the officer/staff member who had
misplaced the RTIapplication in a wrong file leading to so much delay in this
case. It is to be noted that when the information seeker had filed the appeal
before the Appellate Authority, some part of the information was disclosed to
him and the remaining information was provided only when we decided the
matter in second appeal.
4. Thus, for part of the information, the information seeker had to wait till
the disposal of the first appeal and the remaining part till the disposal of the
second appeal. We would like to hear the explanation of all the three persons
as stated above and, therefore, direct them to appear before the Commission
(Room No. 306, 2nd Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama
Place, New Delhi – 110 066.) on 1 April 2011 at 11.30 a.m. and offer their
explanation about their relative role and responsibility in the delay in this matter
before we finally decide on the imposition of penalty.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
CIC/SM/A/2010/000494
(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief 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)
Deputy Registrar
CIC/SM/A/2010/000494