The CPIO had not complied with the directions of the FAA’s order - CIC directed to issue a Show Cause Notice to the CPIO, State Bank of India for explaining as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against him
1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Regional Business Office-2, Varanasi,seeking information on five points pertaining to compassionate appointment of dependents of deceased employees, including, inter-alia,
(i) the address of Lucknow and Mumbai Head Office of SBI along with the name of the highest official;
(ii) a copy of the order vide which appointment on compassionate ground has been discontinued;
(iii) a copy of the earlier order issued by SBI for providing compassionate appointment; and
(iv) the facilities provided to the dependents of the deceased employees.
2. The complainant filed a complaint before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO had not provided any information stating that the RTI applicant can seek the information in his personal capacity as per Section 3 of the RTI Act. The FAA vide order dated 27.11.2015 directed the CPIO to provide information as available while keeping the provisions of the RTI Act in view. The CPIO has failed to comply with the directions of the FAA. The complainant requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide Page | 2 information as sought and penalize the CPIO for not complying with the directions of the FAA.
3. Both the complainant Shri Vinod Dhar Dube and the respondent State Bank of India, RBO-2, Varanasi were not present despite notice.
4. The Commission, after perusing the records, notes that the CPIO had not complied with the directions of the FAA’s order dated 30.11.2015 and since the respondent was not present in the hearing, the reason for the same could not be ascertained. The Commission, thus, finds that information has not been provided by the respondent in compliance with the directions of the FAA to the complainant. The Commission, therefore, directs the Registry of this Bench to issue a Show Cause Notice to the CPIO, State Bank of India RBO-2, Varanasi for explaining as to why action under Section 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 should not be initiated against him.
5. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
6. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Citation: Vinod Dhar Dubevs. CPIO, State Bank of India in Decision No. CIC/SBIND/C/2017/193775, dated 16.02.2018