Instead of transferring the application, the PIO requested the appellant to approach the bank for obtaining the information - CIC counselled the PIO to be more careful in future so that such lapses do not recur; PIO to transfer the application to the bank
O R D E R
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai, seeking information on six points pertaining to his complaint no. PMOPG/1/2015/0054670 dated 10.04.2015, including, inter-alia, (i) diary number and/or registration number assigned to complaint sent to RBI, DBS Delhi by Hon’ble Prime Minister’s Office, and (ii) status of complaint and stage of investigation, proceedings initiated regarding redressal of complaint dated 10.04.2015.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that the reply given by CPIO is totally false, misleading, incomplete and irregular and the FAA has disposed off the appeal without taking cognizance of facts enumerated therein. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide him correct and authentic information in public interest.
3. The appellant Shri Rajesh Kumar Sharma and the respondents Shri Ameet Tanksalli, Assistant Legal Adviser, Shri Jan Tapa, Manager (SSM, OBC) and Shri Manish Kumar, Assistant General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Department of Banking Supervision, Central Office, Mumbai attended the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The appellant submitted that the status of his complaint and stage of the investigation along with copy of findings/observations by competent authority were not provided to him. He further submitted that the information sought was with regard to his complaint filed before the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India regarding unethical activities undertaken and resorted to by bank officials and executives of Oriental Bank of Commerce in their pursuit to cross sell insurance products under joint venture business with Canara Bank.
5. The respondent Shri Ameet Tanksalli, Assistant Legal Adviser submitted that point-wise information as per the available records has been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 24.07.2017. He also submitted that the letter is self explanatory in nature.
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, finds that an appropriate reply has been provided to the appellant by the respondent on point nos. A, B, C, D and F except point no. E of the RTI application. The Commission also observes that as per Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, where an application is made to a public authority but the subject matter of the RTI application pertains to another public authority, the CPIO of the public authority receiving the RTI application has to transfer the same to the public authority concerned, within five days from the date of receipt of the RTI application. However, the respondent instead of transferring of application requested the appellant to approach the bank for obtaining the desired information. The CPIO is, therefore, counselled to be more careful in future, so that such lapses do not recur. The Commission also directs the CPIO to transfer the RTI application along with a copy of the Commission’s decision to the public authority concerned within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the appellant.
7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Citation: Rajesh Kumar Sharma v. CPIO, Reserve Bank of India in Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2017/607702, Date 31.12.2018