Appellant’s RTI applications were not put up to the designated PIO by the Chief Manager (HR) as they were misplaced - CIC: devise a system whereby the RTI applications reach the designated PIO first; penalty proceedings dropped as no malafide established
26 Oct, 2014
ADJUNCT ORDER
In pursuance with the Commission’s order of even number dated 25.07. 2014, a show cause notice u/s 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 Act was issued to the CPIO to show cause as to why a penalty should not be imposed on him for not replying to the appellant pertaining to all the four RTI requests, as mandated under the Act. The Commission directed the CPIO to submit his written submission to the Commission within four weeks of the receipt of the order. He was also asked to appear before the Commission personally for hearing on 9th September, 2014 at 1100 hrs.
2. Shri Rajesh Verma, the then DGM/CPIO, SBI, New Delhi presently holding the post of General Manager (NW-II), SBI, Lucknow submitted has written submissions and stated during the hearing that:
He had been posted as Dy. General Manager in the Administrative Office- II of SBI from 26.10.2011 till 9.11.2013., The authority structure of CPIO, CAPIO and First Appellate Authority in SBI was reviewed from time to time. Consequent upon administrative redesigning of the bank, the said authority structure earlier put in place w.e.f.1.1.2010 was replaced by the new structure w.e.f. 29.11.2011 pursuant to which the DGM (B&O) of the module was designated as CPIO for RTI applications received at the Administrative Office. Thus, the new structure had come into effect barely
a month after he assumed office as DGM of the module.
Though he was the administrative head of the module at the material time, the individual departments functioning under the administrative head have their clearly demarcated responsibilities for discharge of functions in the bank. Accordingly, RTI applications received by the Administrative Offices are dealt with by the Human Resource (HR) Department of the Administrative Office which is headed by the Chief Manager (HR). The said department prepares the response of the bank by gathering information from the concerned departments and the draft reply is put up before the DGM/CPIO for finalization and disposal. Where any order/direction is received from the First Appellate Authority the same is also dealt with by the HR Department and suitable compliance (if any) is to be ensured by the said department.
He stated that the applications of Dr. Jayanti P. Gupta appeared to have been received at HR department and was supposed to be dealt with by the said department in the normal course. However, since the applications of Dr. Jayanti P. Gupta remained un-responded, the Chief Manager (HR) at that time, Shri Satish Kumar Rihan was advised to explain the reasons therefore. It is apparent from the reply of shri Rihan that RTI applications addressed to the DGM of the Administrative Office, Delhi were dealt with by the HR Department and also monitored by him personally. Shri Rihan has admitted that the applications of Dr. Jayanti P. Gupta got misplaced as a consequence of which the said had remained un-responded. Shri Rihan has expressed his regrets and has assured to be more carefull in
discharging his duties henceforth.
Shri Verma, the CPIO submited during the hearing that since the RTI applications of the applicant were not placed before him or brought to his notice there was in no way he came to know of the existence of such applications.
He also stated that though suitable information in response to the RTI applications of the applicant were provided on the date of hearing of the appeals before the Commission vide letters No. DZO-II/HR/RTI/1635-1638 all dated 25.7.2014.
The CPIO further stated that he has the highest respect for the CIC and due regard for its wisdom and righteous dispensation. He never avoided or slighted the obligations of CPIO under the RTI Act and has discharged his duty diligently.
The CPIO expressed his sincere regrets that there was failure in discharge of obligation under the RTI Act by the concerned department of Administrative Office-II, Delhi in respect of the RTI applications of Dr. Gupta. He further requested the Commission not to impose penalty on him.
3. Having considered the submissions of Shri Rajesh Verma, the then DGM/CPIO, SBI, New Delhi presently holding the post of General Manager (NWII), SBI, Lucknow, the Commission is surprised to note that the DGM/CPIO remained completely in the dark about the RTI applications received by the SBI, Delhi Administrative Office-II, New Delhi and there is no monitoring system by the CPIO was in place. Shri Verma, submitted that consequent upon administrative redesigning of the bank, the structure was replaced w.e.f. 29.11.2011, pursuant to which the DGM (B&O) was designated as CPIO for RTI applications received at the Administrative Office. Accordingly, the RTI applications, are received by the Administrative Office are dealt with by the Human Resource (HR) Department of the Administrative Office which is headed by the Chief Manager (HR). The said department prepares the response of the bank by gathering information from the departments concerned and the draft reply is put up before the DGM/CPIO for finalization and disposal. Where any order/direction is received from the First Appellate Authority the same is also dealt with by the HR Department and suitable compliance (if any) is to be ensured by the said department. As per their existing system, Shri Verma, the then CPIO stated that the applications were sent for processing by Chief Manager (HR), who in turn admitted that the applications of Dr. Jayanti P. Gupta got misplaced, as a consequence of which these remained had remained unresponded. Shri Rihan has expressed his regrets. However, Shri Verma stated that suitable response to the RTI applications of the applicant were provided on the date of hearing of the appeals before the Commission vide letter dated 25.7.2014.
4. The appellant’s RTI applications were not put up to the designated CPIO by Shri Satish Kumar Rihan, Chief Manager (HR) as these were misplaced, who expressed his regrets. The Commission hereby recommends to the CMD [Head of Public Authority], SBI to look into the matter and devise a system whereby the RTI applications reach the designated CPIO first to enable him to monitor the progress and to provide information to RTI applicants within the stipulated period of time as mandated under the RTI Act so that such incident of delay are not repeated in future. In the present case no malafide on the part of the CPIO or deemed CPIO is established for deliberate nondisclosure of information to the appellant in respect of all his four RTI requests. The requisite information in respect of all the four RTI application was provided to the appellant by the CPIO vide letter No. DZO-II/HR/RTI/1635-1938 all dated 25.7.2014. The CPIO has confirmed that the directions of the Commission’s order dated 25.7.2014 have been complied with and the documents have been provided to the appellant vide letter No,. DAO-II/HR/1686 dated 28.7.2014. In view of above penalty proceedings against Shri Rajesh Verma, the then DGM/CPIO, SBI, New Delhi presently holding the post of General Manager (NW-II), SBI, Lucknow are hereby dropped. The CPIO is hereby warned to be careful in future while dealing with RTI matters.
(Manjula Prasher)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Dr. Jayanti P. Gupta v. State Bank of India in Appeal No. CIC/VS/A/2013/001650/MP, CIC/VS/A/2013/001651/MP, CIC/VS/A/2013/001670/MP, CIC/VS/A/2013/001719/MP