Appellant: similar charge sheet was given to six employees, but different penalty imposed ranging from dismissal to stopping increment which is discriminatory - copies of correspondence and notesheet related to him was denied - CIC: inspection to be done
O R D E R
1. The appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO on 1.8.2012 seeking copies of the correspondence, with office notes, between Allahabad Bank Kolkata and Allahabad UP Gramin Bank / Lucknow Regional Gramin Bank concerning him from 1.4.2006 to 31.7.2012. The CPIO expressed its inability to provide the information on 16.8.2012 stating that no separate record of such correspondence was maintained by the bank.
2. Not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 6.9.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA upheld the reply of the PIO on 17.9.2012. The appellant approached the Commission on 14.11.2012 in second appeal.
3. The respondent did not participate in the hearing. The appellant participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 1.8.2012 and stated that the respondent bank had proceeded with a disciplinary action against six staff members of the bank who were also office bearers of the bank union. The appellant stated that all the six employees were charge sheeted. The appellant stated that three of the six employees were dismissed, while in the case of other 3 employees, only some increments were stopped.
5. The appellant stated that the departmental action of the bank violated the set procedures and guidelines followed by the bank. The appellant informed that the sponsoring bank, i.e., Allahabad Bank had also sought to intervene in this matter. The appellant stated that the information that he is seeking, would be available from the correspondence between the sponsoring bank and the regional rural bank, which is the respondent in this case. The appellant stated that he wants to see the correspondence between the Allahabad Bank and the respondent bank on the issue that he has mentioned in his RTI application.
6. The appellant stated that the charge sheet given to all the six employees / office bearers is similar, but the penalty imposed is discriminatory, as 3 of the 6 were dismissed whereas in the case of other 3, the level of punishment is much reduced. The appellant stated that this is why it is important for him to be informed about the correspondence.
7. The respondent is directed to enable the appellant to inspect the relevant file and make available photo copies of the pertinent documents within 30 days of this order.
8. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to both the parties.
Citation: Shri Rajendra Singh v. Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2013/900022/05406