The complainant was informed that the records relating to his representation are not traceable - CIC: In the absence of any malafide intention, it would not be appropriate to initiate any action for imposition of penalty on the PIO for the delay in reply
14 Dec, 2018O R D E R
1. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Premises & Estate Dept., LHO, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad in compliance of the Commission’s Order No. CIC/SBHYD/C/2017/112735 dated 29.05.2018 for not furnishing complete information to the complainant. The CPIO was directed to submit an explanation as to why action under Section 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. of the RTI should not be initiated against him.
Hearing on 27.09.2018:
2. The respondent Shri Ankam Premchand, CPIO and AGM (P&E), State Bank of India, LHO Hyderabad attended the hearing through video-conferencing. 3. The respondent submitted that point-wise information was furnished to the complainant in response to his RTI application vide reply dated 20.02.2017. A copy of the order of the Review Committee was also provided to the complainant. As regards point no. 2 of the RTI application, the complainant was informed that the IR Department, Head Office had advised the Corporate Finance Branch, Mumbai to verify the records regarding payment of arrears, if any, and advise the complainant accordingly. Hence, the complainant was informed about the action taken on letter. However, he cannot confirm whether any formal reply to the letter dated 25.01.2007 written by the complainant to the MD & CGM regarding payment of his arrears was given to the latter or not by the then CPIO who has since retired. The respondent requested the Commission to grant him some more time to trace the relevant records relating to the reply was furnished to the complainant’s letter dated 25.01.2007
Interim Decision:
4. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, observes that though a reply dated 20.02.2017 was furnished to the complainant in response to his RTI application dated 16.01.2017, complete information has not been furnished to him in respect of point no. 2 of the RTI application. However, the respondent has sought some more time to trace the reply, if any, given to the complainant in response to his letter dated 25.01.2007. The Commission considered the request of the respondent and adjourns the matter to 03.12.2018 at 10.40 am. Hearing on 03.12.2018:
5. The respondent Shri Ankam Premchand, CPIO and AGM (P&E), State Bank of India, LHO Hyderabad attended the hearing through video-conferencing.
6. The respondent submitted that as per the records available, the records relating to the complainant’s representation dated 25.01.2007 are not traceable, despite their best efforts to trace the same. Hence, it cannot be said whether any reply to the complainant’s representation dated 25.01.2007 regarding payment of his arrears was given to the latter. However, vide CPIO’s reply dated 20.02.2017, the complainant was informed about the action taken on his letter dated 25.01.2007. The respondent reiterated that there was no deliberate or malafide intention to withhold or conceal the information from the complainant. Moreover, the complainant has now been informed vide letter dated 22.11.2018 that the records relating to his representation are not traceable. In view of this, the respondent requested that the Show Cause Notice issued to the CPIO be dropped.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, observes that the respondent submitted during the hearing the records relating to the complainant’s representation dated 25.01.2007 are not traceable. Hence, he could not confirm whether any reply to the complainant’s representation dated 25.01.2007 regarding payment of his arrears was given to the latter. Nonetheless, the complainant was informed vide CPIO’s reply dated 20.02.2017 about the action taken on his letter in question. Hence, it cannot be said that there was any conscious or deliberate attempt on the part of the respondent to withhold or deny the information sought by the complainant. Thus, in the absence of any malafide intention, it would not be appropriate to initiate any action for imposition of penalty on the respondent. In view of this, the Show Cause Notice issued to the CPIO, State Bank of India, Premises & Estate Dept., LHO, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad, is hereby dropped. 8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to both the parties.
Sudhir Bhargava
Information Commissioner
Citation: T.M. Ramadasan v. CPIO, State Bank of India in Complaint No. CIC/SBHYD/C/2017/112735, Date 04.12.2018