Particulars of officers responsible for disposal of a certain representation sought to fix responsibility for delay – it was due to the heavy rush on account of 6th CPC arrear payments - compensation paid for delay - no particular personnel responsible
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 24.12.2011 seeking particulars of the officers responsible for disposal of a certain application.
2. The PIO responded on 01.02.2012. The appellant filed a first appeal on 24.02.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA response is not on record. The appellant filed a second appeal on 17.05.2012 with the Commission.
3. The appellant and the respondent both participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 24.12.2011 stating that he had sought information on 3 points. The background as stated by the appellant was that his RTI application was trying to address to get the specifics about why the bank had delayed the disposal of his mother's representation. The appellant said the representation of 27.11.2010 was disposed of on 06.01.2012 and in this light, he was seeking the information. The appellant said that the focus of his plea today is not on point (b) and (c) of the RTI application but on point (a). The appellant said that he wanted to know the name and designation of the officers who were responsible for the disposal of his mother's application so that a responsibility could be fixed for the delays.
5. The respondent stated that the reason for the delay was due to the heavy rush on account of 6th CPC arrear payments. The respondent said that they have never tried to conceal this information and in fact replied on 01.02.2012 in respect of the RTI application of 24.12.2011. It was stated that the delay was due to the 6th CPC arrear payment. The respondent stated that this delay was in both the States of Bihar and Jharkhand and this fact was stated in the response.
6. The respondent stated that there was a delay and accordingly the bank had also paid compensation for the delay.
7. The respondent stated that they did not hold any particular personnel responsible, hence there is no name to be provided to the appellant.
8. The appellant stated that he had not received any compensation for this.
9. The respondent stated that he will send the information regarding the compensation.
10. The bank's response of 01.02.2012 is in conformity with the RTI Act.
11. The response of the bank in the matter is upheld. The appeal is disposed of.
Citation: Shri Rajesh Kumar Sinha v. State Bank of India in Decision No.CIC/VS/A/2012/000977/03982