Transfer of pension to wrong account - Neither the RTI application nor the first appeal was responded by the respondent, on account of non-receipt - Respondent furnished a reply which the appellant claimed to have not received - CIC: Provide revised reply
12 Apr, 2024
O R D E R
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.10.2021 seeking information on the following points:
Loosely translated - As per Nagar Palika Parishad letter dated 14.7.2021, it has been learnt that your branch deposited the pension of Uttam Singh Parihar S/o Shri Khachhuram Parihar R/o Ramgarh for the period October 2020 to May 2021 in a different account (account no 53610100000889 instead of 536101000001146). Please give a copy of the account no account no 53610100000889 for the period Oct 2020 to July 2021.
2. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 29.12.2021 FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record.
3. Due to non-receipt of any order from the First Appellate Authority, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
4. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Atul, Law officer and Mr. Ashish Kumar, Chief Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.
5. The appellant inter alia submitted that neither the RTI application nor the first appeal were responded by the respondent. The appellant further submitted that after receiving notice from Collectorate Office, he came to know that the pension amount of Mr. Uttam Singh, was wrongly transferred to a wrong bank account (third-party), therefore, he filed the instant RTI application for seeking bank account number to which the amount was transferred wrongly. He stated that he sought this information for larger public interest. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide a satisfactory information.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that neither the RTI application nor the first appeal of the appellant were received in their office therefore, no reply could be provided. However, the RTI application was received along with the hearing notice of the Commission, and then, the respondent had furnished a reply to the appellant vide their letter dated 09.0.1.2024, though the appellant during the hearing claimed the same was not received by him. During the course of hearing, the respondent expressed his preparedness to share only the bank account number in which the amount was wrongly transferred.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observed that neither the RTI application nor the first appeal was responded by the respondent, on account of non-receipt of the same. During the hearing the respondent submitted that the RTI application was received along with the hearing notice of the Commission, and then, the respondent had furnished a reply to the appellant vide their letter dated 09.01.2024, however, as per the appellant the same was not received by him. Accordingly, the Commission directs the respondent to revisit the RTI application and provide a revised reply specifying the account number to which the amount was wrongly transferred, along with copy of their reply dated 09.01.2024, to the appellant within 15 days from the date of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. With these observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
ANANDI RAMALINGAM
Information Commissioner
Citation: Lakhpat Singh v. Bank of Baroda, Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2022/108671; Date of Decision: 19.01.2024