Central Information CommissionChoith Ram Goklani vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 1 September, 2023Author:Suresh ChandraBench:Suresh Chandraके   ीय सूचना आयोग\n                              Central Information Commission\n                                 बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका\n                               Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka\n                               नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067\nि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/RUGBK /A/2022/654364\nChoith Ram Goklani                                   ... अपीलकता/Appellant\n\n                                      VERSUS\n                                       बनाम\nCPIO: Baroda U.P. Bank\nSultanpur                                                ... ितवादीगण/Respondents\nRelevant dates emerging from the appeal:\n\nRTI    :12.08.2022             FA     : 12.09.2022          SA      : 10.10.2022\n\nCPIO : 07.09.2022              FAO : 07.10.2022             Hearing : 09.08.2023\n                                        CORAM:\n                                 Hon'ble Commissioner\n                              SHRI SURESH CHANDRA\n                                       ORDER(31.08.2023)1.     The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 10.10.2022\ninclude non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI\napplication dated 12.08.2022 and first appeal dated 12.09.2022:-(i)    "Provide duly attested copy of each and every official reporting from the record of\n       Regional Office Sultanpur, by which in between 11/9/2017 and 11/11/2017 this fact\n       was reported to the Head Office of the Bank that after 11/9/2017 the date on which\n       the complete charge was officially taken over by Mr. Hariram EC 5109 till the date of\n       11/11/2017 official charge taken report of Garavpur branch (as advised through\n       circular no HO/01/BR/HRM/2008-09/257 dated 20/2/2009 of Head Office) still not\n       received by the Regional Office Sultanpur.(ii)   If any such official reporting, as requested on the point number (i) of this RTI\n       application does not exist on the official record of Regional Office Sultanpur provide\n       this Information officially.Page 1 of 5(iii)   Provide duly attested copy of each and every official reporting from the record of\n        Regional Office Sultanpur, by which on the record in between 11/9/2017 and\n        11/11/2017 this fact was reported by Regional Office Sultanpur to the Head Office of\n        the Bank that on the basis of the official reporting received from Garavpur branch be\n        informed that the particular loan document number **************52 is physically\n        not available on the record of Garavpur branch.(iv)    If any such official reporting, as requested on the point number (iii) of this RTI\n        application does not exist on the official record of Regional Office Sultanpur provide\n        this Information officially.(v)     Provide duly attested copy of each and every official reporting from the record of\n        Regional Office Sultanpur, which was officially received by RO Sultanpur in between\n        11/9/2017 and 11/11/2017 and by which incoming branch manager of Garavpur\n        branch Mr. Hariram EC 5109 had reported this fact before the authorities of\n        Regional Office Sultanpur, that the outgoing manager C.R. Goklani EC 1027, in the\n        entire process of taking over the charge of Garavpur branch did not cooperate with\n        the incoming branch manager Mr. Hariram EC 5109, and as the result of that some\n        of the directives advised by the head office through circular number\n        HO/01/BR/HRM/2008-09/257 dated 20/2/2009 could not be complied with.(vi)    If any such official reporting, as requested on the point number (v) of this RTI\n        application does not exist on the official record of Regional Office Sultanpur provide\n        this Information officially."2.      Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated\n28.10.2020 under theRight to Information Act, 2005(RTI Act) before the Central Public\nInformation Officer (CPIO) Baroda U.P. Bank Head Office Sultanpur. The CPIO vide letter\ndated 07.09.2022 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first\nappeal dated 12.09.2022. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 07.10.2022\ndisposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal\ndated10.10.2022 before the Commission which is under consideration.Page 2 of 53.      The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 12.08.2022 inter alia on the grounds\nthat reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission\nto direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as perSection 20 (1)of the RTI Act.4.      The CPIO replied vide letter dated 07.09.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-(i)     "As per theSection 6(1)of RTI Act, 2005, a person, who wants to obtain any\n        information under this Act, shall specify the particulars of the information sought by\n        him or her. Non-specific quires or clarification or interpretation of rule is outside the\n        purview of the Act. The CPIO is not supposed to create information or interpret\n        information.(ii)    As mentioned in point no. (i).(iii)   As persection 6(1)of the RTI Act, 2005, a person, who desires to obtain any\n        information under this Act, shall specify the particulars of the information sought by\n        him or her. Non-specific queries or clarification or interpretation of rule is outside\n        the purview of the Act. The CPIO is supposed to create information interpret\n        information.(iv)    As mentioned in point no. (iii).\n\n(v)     As per section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, a person, who desires to obtain anyinformation under this Act, shall specify the particulars of the information of rule is\n        outside the purview of the Act. The CPIO is not supposed to create information or\n        interpret information.(vi)    As mentioned in point no. (v)."The FAA vide order dated 07.10.2022 agreed with the reply given by the CPIO.5.      The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Manoj Kumar Jha, Regional Head,\nBaroda U P Bank, Sultanpur, attended the hearing through video conference.5.1.    The appellant inter alia submitted that desired information was not provided by the\nrespondent. He further submitted that he was dealt with departmentally and penalty of Rs.Page 3 of 575,000/- was imposed upon him. He stated that he had sought information to defend his case\nin the court of law.5.2.   The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had replied\nto the RTI application vide letter dated 07.09.2022. They further submitted that the\ninformation sought was not specific and definite. They further submitted that they were not\nunder obligation to create the information for the appellant.6.     The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing\nboth the parties and perusal of records, observed that it was not the case that the appellant\nwas seeking any definite or specific document in his RTI application. Rather, he was trying\nto prove under the garb of RTI application that there was no such document by which it\ncould be established that the loan document in respect of the loan account number\n***********552 was missing in Garavpur branch. That issue or the subject matter was\ndealt with by the Appellate Authority and by the disciplinary authority, Enquiry Authority.\nThe Commission is neither the grievance redressal forum nor the forum to dig issue,\nevidence for or against the appellant which was the subject matter before the Enquiry\nOfficer. If the appellant had any grievance against the order of the disciplinary authority or\nagainst the enquiring authority, the same could have been challenged before the appropriate\nforum. The appellant may not convert the RTI proceedings into disciplinary proceedings by\nre-initiating the departmental proceedings de novo. Moreover, similar issue had been heard\nand dismissed by the Commission in the File No. CIC/RUGBK/A/2022/605401 order dated\n24.07.2023. That being so, there appears to be no public interest in prolonging the matter\nfurther. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.Sd/-(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा)\n                                                                                          ा\n                                                                              सूचनाआयु )\n                                                   Information Commissioner (सू\n                                                                    दनांक/Date: 31.08.2023Page 4 of 5Authenticated true copy\n\nR. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत )\nDy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक)\n011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)\n\nAddresses of the parties:The CPIO\nBaroda UP Bank, 123,\nIshwardas Verma Memorial\nComplex, Gora Barik, Amahat,\nLucknow Road, Sultanpur, UP -228001\n\nFirst Appellate Authority,\nBaroda U.P. Bank\nBuddh Vihar Commercial Scheme,\nNew Shivpuri Colony,\nTaramandal, Gorakhpur-273016\n\n\nShri Choith Ram Goklani,Page 5 of 5