Central Information CommissionJitender Kumar vs State Bank Of India on 7 February, 2022Author:Neeraj Kumar GuptaBench:Suresh Chandra,Neeraj Kumar Guptaके    य सूचना आयोग\n                           Central Information Commission\n                              बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मु नरका\n                            Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka\n                             नई द ल , New Delhi - 110067\n     वतीयअपीलसं$या / Second Appeal No.CIC/SBIND/A/2018/132019\n\nJitender Kumar                                          ... अपीलकता/Appellant\n\n                                   VERSUS\n                                    बनाम\n\nCPIO: State Bank of India,\nKarnal                                              ...% तवाद गण/Respondents\n\n\nRelevant dates emerging from the appeal:\n\nRTI : 16.04.2015                                                CNC : 31.08.2020\n                 FA : 03.03.2017           SA    : 24.04.2018\n& 16.01.2017\nCPIO: 18.05.2015                                                Hearing : 26.11.2021\n                 FAO : 27.03.2017          Order : 15.06.2020\n& 21.02.2017\n\n                                       CORAM:\n                                 Hon'ble Commissioner\n                               SHRI SURESH CHANDRA\n                                      ORDER(07.02.2022)1.      The issue under consideration is the complaint of non-compliance (CNC) of CIC's\norder dated 15.06.2020 in this matter.2.      Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated\n16.04.2015 & 16.01.2017 under theRight to Information Act, 2005(RTI Act) before the\nCentral Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Karnal, seeking\nfollowing information:-Page 1 of 5(i)         "Copy of Show Cause Notice issued to bank employees posted in main branch,\n               Karnal during the year 2012 to 2015 for not complying with the banking rule\n               or for any other kind of fault/irregularity while discharging their duties.(ii)        Copy of banking rules/instructions or any kind of rule issued by SBI under\n               which disciplinary/departmental action is initiated against the bank employees\n               for any act of irresponsibility or carelessness which discharging their duties as\n               a banker.(iii)       The information and nature of Cheques i.e. self or bearer made from his saving\n               Bank Account No. *******3436 as on 26.04.2013.(iv)        Copy of RBI instructions for sending the SMS alert to the account holder on\n               their registered mobile number.(v)         Copy of RBI rule/instructions regarding the preservation of CCTV footage of\n               cameras for a minimum number of days.(vi)        Copy of master circular issued by RBI on customer services in banks for the\n               year 2012-2013.(vii) Copy of rules/instruction issued by RBI or SBI regarding payment of self or\n               bearer cheque.(viii) Copy of instructions/ruled regarding saving bank account issued by RBI or\n               SBI."The CPIO replied on dated 18.05.2015 & 21.02.2017. Dissatisfied with the\nresponse of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 03.03.2017. The First\nAppellate Authority (FAA) disposed of the first appeal vide its order dated 27.03.2017.\nAggrieved by that, the appellant had filed a second appeal dated 24.04.2018 before the\nCommission which was heard and following directions were passed by the Commission\nvide order dated 15.06.2020:6.      "The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case,\n          hearing both the parties and perusal of records, notes that reply given by thePage 2 of 5respondent on point no. (1) of the RTI application is incomplete and misleading. It\n       is noted that the inquiry was made on the appellant's complaint regarding\n       unauthorized withdrawals from his account. Hence, being an affected party the\n       appellant is entitled to get a copy of the inquiry report. Moreover, the respondent\n       failed to justify the exemptions claimed undersection 8 (1) (d)of the RTI Act. In\n       view of this, the respondent is directed to provide a copy of the inquiry report of\n       the alleged transactions after redacting the name of the inquiry officer, within four\n       weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With the above directions, the appeal\n       is disposed of."3.      The appellant vide letter dated 31.08.2020 filed complaint for non-compliance of\nthe order of the Commission dated 15.06.2020.4.     In compliance of the order of the Commission, the respondent replied vide letter\ndated 08.09.2021 that the information sought was not traceable. They had also contacted\nthe RBO Panipat/ Administrative Office Rohtak, Controller of Branch vide email dated\n20.07.2021. However, in spite of their best efforts, they were unable to locate the record\npertaining to the information sought.5.     The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Arun Kumar Sharma, CPIO\nand Shri Santosh Singh CPIO, State Bank of India, Karnal attended the hearing through\nvideo conference.5.1.   The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had failed to comply with\nthe directions of the Commission and had not furnished the requisite information.5.2    The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that in compliance\nof the Commission's order dated 15.06.2020 they had communicated with the Rohtak\nOffice and had also searched their records, however, the information sought by the\nappellant was not traceable. The respondent (Shri Arun Kumar) further stated that he was\ntransferred 15 days after the Commission's order dated 15.06.2020 and Shri Santosh\nSingh took charge as CPIO.Page 3 of 56.    The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing\nboth the parties and perusal of records, observed that the respondent have failed to\ncomply with the Commission's order dated 15.06.2020. The respondent vide letter dated\n08.09.2021 replied to the appellant that the information sought was not traceable. It may\nbe noted that in response to the RTI application, the erstwhile CPIO had denied the\ninformation claiming exemption undersection 8 (1) (d)of the RTI Act vide letter dated\n21.02.2017. Thereafter, when the second appeal came up for hearing before the\nCommission, the respondent was directed that the inquiry report of the alleged\ntransactions be provided to the appellant after redacting the name of the inquiry officer.However, the respondent have now pleaded that the information is not traceable. This not\nonly reflects inconsistency and contradiction in the submissions made by the respondent\nfrom time to time. In view of the above, Mr. Chandrashekhar Sharma, First Appellate\nAuthority is directed to inquire into the matter and submit the report clearly bringing out\nthe following:i)     "As to why Commission's order dated 15.06.2020 was not complied withii)    As to who is responsible for malfeasance which includes fraudulent\n             withdrawal of Account, missing inquiry report etc.iii)   The corrective measures proposed to be taken.iv)    The officers who were in the helm of affairs including the Branch Manager\n             or the Chief Manager during that period.v)     Any other point that enquiring authority may deal with."Moreover, during the course of hearing it was revealed that Mr. Kailash Chand\nwas the officer at that time and he was also the enquiring authority. In view of the\nabove, Shri Arun Kumar, the then CPIO, Shri Santosh Singh, CPIO, and Shri Kailash\nChand, considering him as deemed CPIO, are show caused as to why penal action may\nnot be initiated against them under provisions ofsection 20 (1)of the RTI Act. The\nFAA may submit his report within 4 weeks from the receipt of this order. It is the\nresponsibility of the present CPIO to serve this order to all CPIOs, FAA and deemed\nCPIO mentioned above and secure the written explanations of the CPIOs as well asPage 4 of 5their attendance on the next date of hearing.       With these directions, the matter is\nadjourned.Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.Sd/-(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेशचं ा)\n                                             Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु त)\n                                                                      दनांक/Date: 07.02.2022\nAuthenticated true copy\n\nR. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत')\nDy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक)\n011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)\n\n\nAddresses of the parties:CPIO : STATE BANK OF INDIA,\nASSTT. GENERAL MANAGER,\nS.ME. KARNAL, THE MALL,\nKARNAL - 132 001\n\n\n\nSH. JITENDER KUMARPage 5 of 5