Information pertaining to appellant’s pensionary benefits was sought - CIC: A reply was sent to him, but the same was returned to the respondent as undelivered; It cannot be said that the information sought for was malafidely withheld by the respondent
1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Trilok Puri, Delhi, seeking information on three points pertaining to his pensionary benefits, including, inter-alia,
(i) his actual pension drawn on 31.08.2016 and
(ii) whether DA @ Rs. 125/- has been added in the pension drawn as on 31.08.2016.
2. The complainant filed the instant complaint before the Commission on the grounds that no reply has been provided by the CPIO. The complainant requested the Commission to take suitable action against the erring officers.
3. The complainant was not present despite notice. The respondent Shri Ved Prakash Jagrat, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Region-I, Parliament Street, New Delhi was present in person.
4. The respondent submitted that in response to the RTI application a reply was sent to the complainant vide letter dated 15.09.2016 requesting him to submit correct IPO as per the provisions of the RTI Act. However, the said letter was returned to the respondent as ‘undelivered’. In view of this, no further communication could be sent to the complainant in absence of his fresh/correct address. Hence, the information sought for could not be furnished to him, though a response to the RTI application had been prepared.
5. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, observes that a reply in response to the complainant’s RTI application was sent to him vide letter dated 15.09.2016 by the respondent, however, the same was returned to the respondent as undelivered. In view of this, the respondent could not furnish the information sought for to the complainant. In view of this, it cannot be said that the information sought for was malafidely withheld by the respondent. Hence, in the absence of any malafide intention, it would not be appropriate to initiate any action for the imposition of penalty on the CPIO.
6. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
7. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Citation: Dhan Singh v. State Bank of India in Decision No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/185164, dated 28.03.2018