Commission recommends action against the official responsible for sending the reply for his utter carelessness in as much as he did not bother to check as to whether information was for the person to whom it was sent to the higher authority concerned
1. The complainant, Mrs. Manti Devi, submitted RTI application dated December 20, 2011 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Patna seeking information regarding the details of pension paid to her from May, 2004 to July, 2009 vide a/c no. 106753368 and the amount of arrears paid w.e.f 1.1.2006 to July, 2009; through a total of 2 points.
2. The complainant preferred appeal dated June 8, 2012 before the first appellate authority (FAA) when she did not receive any reply from CPIO concerned within the stipulated time period. Vide order dated July 3 2012, the FAA directed the CPIO concerned to send reply to the complainant within seven working days from the receipt of its order. In compliance of the FAA’s order, the CPIO vide reply dated September 8, 2012 furnished the information to the complainant.
3. Dissatisfied with the response of the public authority, the complainant preferred complaint before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The complainant’s representative submitted that the complainant had sought information regarding the details of pension paid to her from May, 2004 to July, 2009 through her account no. 106753368 and the amount of arrears paid w.e.f. 1.1.2006 to July, 2009 but CIC/MP/C/2014/000138 the CPIO concerned had not provided any information within the stipulated 30 days; therefore she moved in appeal before the FAA who directed the CPIO to provide the information within 7 days. After the FAA’s direction, the CPIO concerned had sent a letter containing the information but that information was incorrect. He stated that the information furnished by the respondent was not of the complainant as the account details sent by the respondents contained the name of some other person as account holder. He also stated that complainant should be provided for the harassment faced due to negligence of the respondents.
5. The respondents submitted that due to some technical fault the name and account no. was wrongly mentioned but the actual information about the payments sought for was correct. They also stated that after receiving the CIC’s notice for hearing on 9.12.2014; they again sent a letter dated 12.12.2014 to the complainant to confirm the correctness of the information sent earlier. The complainant stated that he had not received any such letter.
6. In view of the above, the Commission directs the respondents to send complete and correct information to the complainant after due verification of their records within 7 days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The Commission also recommends action against the official responsible for sending the reply for his utter carelessness in as much as he did not bother to check as to whether information was for the person to whom it was sent to the higher authority concerned. The complaint is closed.
Citation: Mrs. Manti Devi v. State Bank of India in Complaint No.CIC/MP/C/2014/000138