Central Information Commission, New Delhi File No. Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19) Date of first hearing Date of first order Date of second hearing Date of second order Date of third hearing Date of final order : : : : : : 13th February 2017 13th February 2017 3 rd April 2017 3 rd April 2017 31 ST May 2017 31 st May 2017 Name of the Appellant : SHRI CHAYAN GHOSH CHOWDHURY Name of the Public Authority/Respondent : CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, DENA BANK ZONAL OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, PRAVEEN HOUSE, 28-A, VIDHAN SABHA MARG, LUCKNOW, UP-226001 RTI Application filed on : 28/08/2015 CPIO replied on : 28/09/2015 First Appeal filed on : 05/10/2015 First Appellate Authority order on : 09/11/2015 2 nd Appeal received on : 03/12/2015 Attendance during the hearing on 13.2.2017. The Appellant was present in person. No one was present on behalf of the Respondents. Attendance during the hearing on 3.4.2017. The Appellant was present in person. On behalf of the Respondents, Shri Dinesh Kumar S. Parmar, Deputy Zonal
Manager and CPIO was present at the NIC Studio, Lucknow. Attendance during the hearing on31.5.2017. The Appellant was present in person. On behalf of the Respondents, Shri Dinesh Kumar S. Parmar, Deputy Zonal Manager and CPIO and Shri Achal Gupta, former CPIO were present at the NIC Studio, Lucknow. Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal Information sought This matter concerns an RTI application filed by the Appellant, seeking information on seven points regarding the representation received from the All India Dena Bank SC/ST/OBC Employees Federation regarding unauthorised temporary persons empanelled in the Zonal Office, Lucknow and related issues. The CPIO reply The CPIO responded point wise to the RTI application and stated, inter alia, that no representation had been received from the above mentioned federation and the Zonal Office had no list of the unauthorised persons empanelled. Grounds of the First Appeal Not satisfied with the CPIO s reply. Order of the First Appellate Authority The FAA stated that the information had already been provided to the Appellant. Grounds of the Second Appeal Not satisfied with the information provided by the Respondents. Relevant facts emerging during the Hearing, Discussion and Decision
Hearing on 13.2.2017 The Appellant stated that the queries of his RTI application were regarding the representation received from the All India Dena Bank SC/ST/OBC Employees Federation concerning unauthorised temporary persons empanelled in the Zonal Office, Lucknow. The CPIO stated that no such representation had been received and no letter had been issued by the bank to recognise the above mentioned federation. He also stated that the Zonal Office in Lucknow had no list of unauthorised persons empanelled. The Appellant made the following submissions regarding the reply of the CPIO, upheld by the FAA:- (i) He had sought a personal hearing from the FAA, which was not granted. (In this context, we note that the Commission is in favour of grant of hearing by FAAs in cases where such hearing is sought by an Appellant). (ii) Even though as per their website, the bank has a First Appellate Authority based at Lucknow, in the CPIO s reply dated 28.9.2015, he was given the name and address of the FAA at New Delhi. The Appellant claimed that this was done to harass him and when he filed an appeal to the FAA in New Delhi, it was sent by him to the FAA in Lucknow. (iii) In an affidavit filed in the Allahabad High Court by Shri Shri Niwas Pathak, Senior Manager of the bank in the Lucknow Zonal Office in Dena Bank Staff Association and Anr. vs. Chairman & Managing Director & Ors. [W.P. No. 2970(S/S) of 2015], the bank stated the following:-
That the Respondent Bank received a representation from All India Dena Bank SC/ST/OBC Employees Federation that unauthorized temporary persons were empanelled in Zonal Office (ZO), Lucknow. In the light of the said representation and after the due diligence the order dated 21/5/2015 bearing reference no. LZO/PER/929/2015 issued for the discontinuance of the services of the persons engaged in the branches of Lucknow and Dehradun Zone on temporary basis. The Appellant argued that in view of the above affidavit filed by the bank, the information provided to him by the CPIO and upheld by the FAA is false. 2. In the light of the foregoing, the Appellant prayed for direction to the Respondents to provide the correct and complete information sought by him, penal action against the CPIO and award of compensation to him in view of the harassment caused to him because of denial of information by the CPIO without any reasonable ground and without citing any section of the RTI Act. 3. The Respondents were not present in spite of a written notice having been sent to them. We take a serious note of their absence during the hearing, which has forced us to adjourn this matter. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned to be heard again on 3 rd April 2017 at 10.30 a.m. through video-conferencing. We direct the CPIO to be present himself at the next hearing to state the position of the bank in response to the above submissions made by the Appellant. The venue for videoconferencing for the hearing on 3.4.2017 will be as follows:- For the Appellant and the Respondents
NIC Video Conferencing Studio, Room No. 110, 1 st Floor, Yojana Bhawan, No. 9, Sarojini Naidu Marg, Lucknow 226001 (U.P.) (Contact Officer: Shri Diwan Singh (Scientist-D) contact No. :0522-2238059/ 2298822/ 2298823) Hearing on 3.4.2017 4. The matter came up again today. At the outset of the hearing, we asked the Respondents to make their submissions regarding certain issues raised by the Appellant during the hearing on 13.2.2017 and mentioned in our interim order of the same date. With regard to paragraph 1 (ii) of the interim order, the Respondents claimed that there was no First Appellate Authority based in Lucknow as the Zonal Head was an officer of the level of AGM. Since the DGM level officer and First Appellate Authority was based at Delhi, the CPIO, in his reply dated28.9.2015, asked the Appellant to file an appeal to the FAA at Delhi. However, subsequently an officer at the level of DGM was appointed at Lucknow and, therefore, the appeal was sent by the FAA at Delhi to the DGM / FAA at Lucknow for necessary action. The Appellant submitted that the website of the Respondents, as on the date of the CPIO s reply (28.9.2015), showed that there was an FAA based at Lucknow. The representative of the Respondents, however, reiterated their above submission. In view of the foregoing, Shri Dinesh Kumar S. Paramar, CPIO is directed to file a sworn affidavit to the Commission, with a copy to the Appellant, stating that no First Appellate Authority was based at Lucknow as on the date of the CPIO s reply (28.9.2015) and indicting the subsequent date, w.e.f. from which a First Appellate Authority was designated at Lucknow. The CPIO should comply with our above directive, within
fifteen days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. 5. With regard to the aspect of furnishing of information, the Respondents stated that no representation from the All India Dena Bank SC/ST/OBC Employees Federation was received by the Zonal Office. It might have been received by the Head Office. The CMD of the bank was party to the case concerning the matter, which went to a court. Therefore, the case was contested from the Head Office and they would have authorised an officer of the Zonal Office to file the affidavit mentioned above. The Appellant stated that since the services of 104 officials of the bank were dispensed with on the basis of the complaint made by the above Federation, the Zonal Office cannot claim that it did not have any information to provide in response to the various queries of his RTI application. He further submitted that with regard to point No. 7 of the application, the CPIO has informed him that the guidelines of DOPT, mentioned therein, were being followed, but has not given the details of the manner in which these guidelines are being followed. The Respondents stated that the Appellant was not a party to the court case and the court has upheld the decision of the bank to dispense with the services of 104 employees. They further submitted that all the relevant information was provided to the court, but were unable to confirm, in response to our query, whether copy of any complaint filed by the All India Dena Bank SC/ST/OBC Employees Federation was provided to the court or not. In response to our query, the Appellant stated that since the services of a number of employees were dispensed with on the basis of a complaint made by the above mentioned Federation, he is entitled to receive a copy of the complaint and the information concerning the Federation, sought at points No. 2 and 3 of the RTI application. The
Appellant also submitted that he has made two visits to Delhi to be present in person for the hearings. He was informed that on both the occasions, the Commission had made arrangements for him to appear at the NIC Studio, Lucknow. However, he had chosen to visit Delhi for the purpose. He was further informed that the fact of his having visited Delhi for the two hearings would have no impact whatsoever on the decision of the Commission, which would be based on the submissions made by the parties. 6. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and are not convinced by the submission made by the Respondents that the Zonal Office had no information whatsoever to provide in response to the queries of the RTI application. Firstly, it has not been denied by the Respondents that an affidavit was filed in the Allahabad High Court by a Senior Manager of the Lucknow Zonal Office. Even if it is assumed that the affidavit was filed under instructions from the Head Office, the fact remains that some information concerning the issue was available in the Zonal Office. Further, since the services of 104 employees under the Lucknow Zonal Office were dispensed with, the Zonal Office cannot take the plea that no information on the issue was available in that office on the date of the CPIO s reply. Moreover, an RTI application is filed to a public authority and not to a particular office of the public authority. Therefore, even if some information was / might have been available at the Head Office, the CPIO at Lucknow should have checked the position with the Head Office before responding to it. In the light of the foregoing, the reply dated 28.9.2015 of the CPIO appears, prima-facie, to be a misleading reply. Therefore, this matter is adjourned to be heard again on 31 st May 2017 at 10.00 a.m. through video-
conferencing. Shri Dinesh Kumar S. Parmar, CPIO is directed to be present for the next hearing along with the officer, who responded to the RTI application as CPIO on 28.9.2015. The officer, who was CPIO on 28.9.2015, would be required to show cause during the next hearing on 31.5.2017 as to why he should not be penalised under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act for his having given a prima-facie misleading reply to the RTI application dated 28.8.2015. 7. Further, since the information sought at points No. 1 to 3 of the RTI application relates to or has been provided by the All India Dena Bank SC/ST/OBC Employees Federation, we would like to give an opportunity to them to make their submissions, if any, before a decision is taken regarding disclosure of the information sought at these points. Accordingly, the CPIO is directed to forward, immediately on its receipt, a copy of this interim order, along with copies of the following documents, by registered post AD, to the All India Dena Bank SC/ST/OBC Employees Federation:- (i) RTI application dated 28.8.2015. (ii) CPIO s reply dated 28.9.2015. (iii) (iv) (v) Appeal dated 5.10.2015 to the First Appellate Authority. Order dated 9.11.2015 of the First Appellate Authority. Appeal dated 27.11.2015 of the Appellant to the Commission (copy enclosed). The All India Dena Bank SC/ST/OBC Employees Federation should be represented at the next hearing on 31.5.2017 in case they wish to make any submissions in the matter.
8. Notwithstanding the above, there is no ground whatsoever to deny the information sought by the Appellant at points No. 4 to 7 of his RTI application. Therefore, the CPIO is directed to provide this information to the Appellant, free of charge, within thirty days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. With regard to point No. 7, the CPIO should provide to the appellant copy(ies) of the bank s circular(s)/ order(s) vide which the DOPT guidelines, mentioned therein, were complied with. 9. A decision on the Appellant s request for compensation will be taken in the light of the submissions made during the next hearing. 10. The venue for video-conferencing for the parties for the next hearing on 31.5.2017 will be as follows:- For the Appellant, the Respondents and the All India Dena Bank SC/ST/OBC Employees Federation NIC Video Conferencing, E- Floor, Yojana Bhavan, No.-9, Sarojini Naidu Marg, Lucknow-226001, (Contact Officer Mr. Diwan Singh, Scientist-D & Contact Nos.:0522-2238059 / 2298822 / 2298823 Hearing on 31.5.2017 11. The matter came up again today. 12. The Respondents stated that as directed by the Commission in paragraph 7 of the interim order dated 3.4.2017, the necessary documents were forwarded to the All
India Dena Bank SC /ST/OBC Employees Federation, Mumbai. However, no one was present during the hearing to represent them. The Respondents further submitted that the CPIO has filed a sworn affidavit dated 22.4.2017 in keeping with the Commission s direction in paragraph 4 of the interim order regarding the issue of the First Appellate Authority. In this affidavit, the CPIO has stated that no Appellate Authority was based at Lucknow as on the date of the former CPIO s reply dated 28.9.2015 and a First Appellate Authority was designated at Lucknow on 1.11.2015. The Appellant questioned the above affidavit of the CPIO and stated that as per the website of the Respondents, there was a First Appellate Authority based at Lucknow at that stage. The Respondents stated that the Zonal Manager at Lucknow was of the level of AGM and was upgraded to the level of DGM on 1.11.2015, when he was designated as the First Appellate Authority at Lucknow. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and have no reason to doubt the categorical statement made by the CPIO in his affidavit. Therefore, we would not pursue this issue any further. 13. With regard to the directions contained in paragraph 8 of the interim order of the Commission, the CPIO stated that a reply was sent on points No. 4 to 7 to the Appellant on 12.5.2017. The Appellant stated that the information sought by him has not been provided. At point No. 4, the Appellant had sought information regarding the list of unauthorised persons empanelled in the Zonal Office Lucknow along with date of empanelment and their present place of posting. The CPIO had stated in his reply dated 12.5.2017 that no such list was maintained by the Zonal Office. The Appellant stated that in the affidavit filed to the Allahabad High Court [reference
paragraph 1 (iii)] above, it was stated that an order dated 21.5.2015 was issued for the discontinuance of the services of the persons engaged in the branches of Lucknow and Dehradun zone on temporary basis. In response to our query, the Respondents stated that there were no unauthorized persons empanelled in the Zonal Office and the information concerning the employees, whose services were dispensed with, is scattered in various branches as such appointments were made there. With reference to points No. 4 and 5 of the RTI application, we direct the CPIO to compile a list of such employees, whose services were dispensed with, by getting the information from the branches and provide it to the Appellant. While providing the name of each such employee, the CPIO should also provide the name and designation of the officer, who had made the initial appointment of the employee concerned, to the extent that such information is available on the records of the branches. We would not like to burden the public authority with the task of collecting the information from the branches in response to point No. 6, thereby disproportionately diverting their resources from their day to day work. Regarding point No. 7, the CPIO had stated that the bank was complying with the government s directives contained in the DOPT circular No. 1/1/2013-IR dated 9.7.2015. However, during the hearing, he stated that only the RTI applications seeking the information, which is sought most often, are placed on the website of the Respondents. We direct the CPIO to bring the contents of the above circular of DOPT to the notice of the Zonal Head. The Commission directs the Respondents to comply fully with the directions contained in the above circular. 14. As regards points No. 1 to 3 of the RTI application, the Respondents stated that the All India Dena Bank SC/ ST/OBC Employees Federation had made their
representation to the Head Office and they have got the information on points No. 1 and 3 from the Head Office. Regarding point No. 2, they stated that only trade unions are recognised by the Head Office of the bank. Since the above organization is an employees federation, no such recognition was required in their case. We see no ground for denial of the information sought by the Appellant at points No. 1 and 3, to the extent available in the records of the bank and the CPIO should provide it to him. As regards point No. 2, the CPIO should explain the position concerning the recognition aspect to the Appellant in writing. 15. The CPIO should comply with our above directives regarding provision of additional information to the Appellant, within ten days of the receipt of this order (points No. 1 to 3) and within thirty days of the receipt of this order (points No. 4 and 5), under intimation to the Commission. The information should be provided free of charge. 16. Explaining his reply dated 28.9.2015, Shri Achal Gupta, former CPIO stated that the representation of the All India Dena Bank SC/ ST/ OBC Employees Federation was received by the Head Office and as stated by the Respondents earlier, the case at the Allahabad High Court was contested from the Head Office and the affidavit mentioned at paragraph 1 (iii) was filed by the Legal Officer under directions from the Head Office. Therefore, he was not aware of either the representation or the affidavit filed at the court, which resulted in his reply dated 28.9.2015. The Appellant stated that this response of the former CPIO is an afterthought and he deliberately gave a wrong reply. As stated in paragraph 6 of our interim order, if the CPIO had checked the position with the Head Office or from all concerned in the Zonal Office, he could
have provided the correct picture to the Appellant. One could understand to some extent his not checking with the Head Office as he might not have been aware of the location of the information in that office. However, his checking the position with the legal officials in the zonal office would have enabled him to give a correct reply. It is, therefore, clear that the CPIO s reply dated 28.9.2015 was not given after a serious application of mind and due diligence. However, there is nothing on record to establish that the reply of the CPIO was the result of any malafide intent. In this connection, we note the following observations made by the High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 3.12.2007 in Bhagat Singh vs Chief Information Commissioner & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 3114 / 2007]:- 17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued. 17. In the light of the foregoing, we would refrain from proceeding with penal action against the CPIO. At the same time, it is clear that the manner in which the RTI application was handled by the Respondents caused a great deal of harassment to the Appellant to get the information desired by him and to follow the process through various stages of appeals. It is difficult to quantify such harassment caused to an applicant in monetary terms. However, by virtue of the power vested in us under
Section 19 (8) (b) of the RTI Act, we direct the Respondents to pay a token compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) to the Appellant. The CPIO should ensure that the above compensation is paid to the Appellant, within fifteen days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. 18. With the above directions and observations, the appeal is disposed of. 19. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties. Copy to:- Sd/- (Sharat Sabharwal) Information Commissioner Shri Girish Charaniya General Secretary, All India Dena Bank SC/ST/OBC Federation, Dena Bank, RAPC, Burjor Baug, First Floor, LBS Marg, Bhandup (West), Mumbai - 400078 Shri Suresh C. Buntolia, Zonal Manager, Dena Bank, Zonal Office, 28 A, Pravin House, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Lucknow-226001 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. (R. L. Gupta) Deputy Registrar