Copies of reminders sent to Zonal Office Jalandhar for non-submissions of periodic CTR statement for a specific period along with a copy of the dispatch register was denied u/s 8(1)(j) - CIC: Revisit the RTI application and provide a specific reply
O R D E R
1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 11.12.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 23.09.2018 and first appeal dated 22.10.2018:-
(a) Whether Zonal Office Jalandhar was having power to generate Cash Transaction Report (CTR) of B/O Ferozpur during the years 2007 to 2011.
(b) Name of the officials dealing with CTR statement in Z.O. Jalandhar for the period 2007 to 2011 along with his/her present place of posting & designations and if retired, his correspondence addresses.
(c) Copies of reminders sent to Z.O. Jalandhar to Ferozepur for non-submissions of periodic CTR statement for the period from 2007 to 2011 along with a copy of the dispatch register.
2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 23.09.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), UCO Bank, Zonal Office, Jalandhar, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 20.10.2018 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with this, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 22.10.2018. The First Appellate Authority did not pass any order. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 11.12.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.
3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 11.12.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information.
4. The CPIO vide letter dated 20.10.2018 gave a point-wise reply wherein they denied the information on point nos. (b) and (c) of the RTI application under clause (j) of sub-section (1) of section 8 of the RTI Act. The order dated 19.11.2018 passed by the FAA is not available on records.
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Gurudev Kumar, Chief Manager, United Commercial Bank (UCO), Jalandhar attended the hearing through video conference.
5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that information sought on point nos. (b) and (c) of the RTI application had not been provided by the respondent. He stated that he was dismissed from the service of the bank and the information sought would help him in getting justice in the court of law. Hence, he requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the requested information.
5.2. The respondent while defending their reply inter alia submitted that the information sought on point nos. (b) and (c) of the RTI application was the personal information of a third party hence it could not be given to the appellant under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. They further contended that the departmental inquiry was properly conducted and an opportunity to defend himself was given to the appellant.
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records notes that the respondent have replied to the RTI application vide letter dated 20.10.2018. Perusal of the reply given by the respondent reveals that specific reply/information has not been provided to the appellant on point no. (c) of the RTI application. The Commission feels that information sought on rest of the points has been appropriately replied by the respondent. Hence, the respondent is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide a specific reply on point no. (c) of the RTI application, within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With the above directions, the appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Citation: Ashok Kumar Goyal v. United Commercial Bank in Second Appeal No. CIC/UCOBK/A/2018/636720, dated 31.07.2020