Action taken for reinstatement of the dismissed employee
In two identical RTI applications, the appellants sought information regarding their dismissal from service and the action taken by the bank after the Industrial Tribunal ordered in their favour which was also upheld by the Supreme Court. The PIO did not respond within the stipulated period. The First Appellate Authority dismissed their appeals by holding that their queries did not amount to information within the meaning of Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
View of the CIC
The Respondent could not offer any explanation about the reasons for the PIO not responding to the RTI applications in time. No explanation was offered on the peremptory order passed by the First Appellate Authority. The Commission noted that the appellants had been dismissed from the bank and were seeking information about their reinstatement in the bank following the Supreme Court order. By not providing them the desired information, the bank deprived them further from knowing about the status of their case for which, the Commission held that they deserved to be compensated. Therefore, in exercise of the powers vested under section 19(8)(b) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Commission directed that the bank to compensate each of the Appellants by an amount of Rs. 5000/-. Further, the Commission directed to provide the information desired by the appellants and issued a show cause notice to the PIO for imposition of penalty.
Citation: Shri Mahesh Prasad Gupta and another v. Central Bank of India in file no.CIC/SM/A/2011/000011