Due to complete organizational overhaul of the Bank, the entire RTI Division was shifted & perhaps the RTI application of the appellant got overlooked - CIC: There was no malafide intention on the part of the respondent to deny or withhold the information
29 Dec, 2018O R D E R
1. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Oriental Bank of Commerce, Cluster Monitoring Office Ghaziabad, Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad, in compliance of the Commission’s Order No. CIC/OBKOC/A/2017/114173 dated 28.05.2018 for not replying to the appellant’s RTI application dated 24.08.2016. 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. 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 was not present despite notice.
Interim Decision:
3. The Commission, after perusing the records, observes that the respondent has furnished a point-wise reply to the appellant’s RTI application in compliance of the Commission’s order vide letter dated 25.06.2018. However, no explanation has been given by the respondent for not furnishing the information sought within the stipulated time period. Moreover, the respondent was not present during the hearing nor did he furnish written submissions to the Commission in reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 06.07.2018. Hence, in the interest of justice, one last opportunity is given to the CPIO, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Cluster Monitoring Office Ghaziabad, Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad for explaining 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. 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 Act should not be initiated against him. The matter would next be taken up for hearing on 03.12.2018 at 10.50 am.
Hearing on 03.12.2018:
4. The respondent Shri D.K. Gupta, AGM, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Cluster Monitoring Office Ghaziabad, was present in person.
5. The respondent submitted that the appellant had filed his RTI application dated 24.08.2016 before Kavi Nagar Branch, Ghaziabad. However, due to complete organizational overhaul of the Bank during July 2016, the entire RTI Division of the Bank under Ghaziabad Region, where Kavi Nagar Branch was located, was shifted to Harsha Bhawan, New Delhi. In view of this, perhaps the RTI application of the appellant got overlooked, inadvertently, during the shifting of the relevant records. Hence, no reply could be provided to the appellant at the relevant point of time. Moreover, the first appeal of the appellant was also not received. The respondent added that on receipt of the notice for hearing dated 08.05.2018 of Second Appeal in the matter, the Bank contacted the appellant and obtained a copy of the RTI application dated 24.08.2016 from him. Subsequently, in compliance of the Commission’s order dated 28.05.2018, point-wise information was furnished to the appellant vide letter dated 25.06.2018. In view of the above, it cannot be said that there was a malafide intention on the part of the respondent to deny or withhold the information from the appellant. Hence, the Show Cause Notice issued to the CPIO be dropped. The respondent informed that the then CPIO, Shri O.P. Banwara, Chief Manager, has since retired w.e.f. 31.10.2016.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, observes that it is quite possible that due to inter-regional shifting of the offices, in July 2016, the appellant’s RTI application dated 24.08.2016 got misplaced, or was inadvertently overlooked by the CPIO concerned. Further, the desired information was furnished vide letter dated 25.06.2018 to the appellant on receipt of the Commission’s order dated 28.05.2018. In view of the above, the Commission infers that there was no deliberate and malafide intent on the part of the respondent to deny the information sought by the appellant. Hence, 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 Shri O.P. Banwara the then CPIO & Chief Manager (Retd.), Oriental Bank of Commerce, Cluster Monitoring Office Ghaziabad, Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad is hereby dropped.
7. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to both the parties.
Sudhir Bhargava
Information Commissioner
Citation: R C Baurai v. CPIO, Oriental Bank of Commerce in Second Appeal No. CIC/OBKOC/A/2017/114173, Date 04.12.2018