PIO: Leave records of employees were supposed to be maintained for 5 years; Appellant retired in 2002 and the information about Privilege Leave sought could not be traced being old - CIC: File an affidavit affirming that the information was not available
21 Jun, 2023O R D E R
1. The issues raised in both the appeals were identical. Therefore, it is felt desirable to pass a common order in both the appeals.
1.1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeals dated 25.03.2021 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 19.12.2020 and first appeal dated 03.03.2021:-
(i) Privilege Leave (PL) at his credit on the date of his compulsorily retirement.
(ii) Copy of his leave folio. 3. His last leave sanction copy for privilege leave availed.
(iii) Details of his last drawn basic pay DA and other allowances prior to the awarding of the punishment of compulsory retirement.
2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 19.12.2020 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indian Bank, Rajaji Salai, Chennai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 16.02.2021 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 03.03.2021. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 15.03.2021 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 25.03.2021 before the Commission which are under consideration.
3. The appellant has filed the instant appeals dated 25.03.2021 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.
4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 16.02.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:-
“Our Mazhaiyr Branch, ZO, Tiruvannamalai and ZO, Vellore have made thorough search at their end and informed that the requested information is not available on records.”
The FAA vide order dated 15.03.2021 informed that the applicant was compulsorily retired from service in the year 2002. It has been more than 18 years since the applicant compulsorily retired from the services of the bank. Moreover, as per Document Retention Policy the leave records of ex-employees were to be preserved for a period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding the current calendar year a copy of which had been provided to the appellant. However, thorough search has been undertaken at Mazhaiyur branch where the applicant had worked at the time of CRS and also at Zonal Office, Vellore & ZO Tiruvannamalai. In spite of the same, the records could not be traced.
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Ms Sreeja Rani, Chief Manager, Indian Bank, Chennai, attended the hearing through video conference.
5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the court of law had ordered for “Paid Leave” encashment subsequent to his retirement. Therefore, he wanted to apply for the same.
However, he did not have the requisite documents in his possession and asked for his leave records from the respondent bank.
5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant was a former employee and had retired in 2002. As per bank’s policy, records including leave records of the employees were supposed to be maintained for a period of five years with them. Therefore, the information sought by the appellant being too old, inspite of search, could not be traced.
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the respondent had replied vide CPIO’s letter dated 16.02.2021. However, the appellant insisted upon the information. It may be noted that the respondent authorities may not be compelled to create or collate data which was not available with them or had been weeded out. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to file an affidavit before the Commission affirming that the information sought in the RTI application was not available, as claimed by them, within four weeks from this date and provide a copy of the same to the appellant. With these observations and directions, the appeals are disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Suresh Chandra
Information Commissioner
Citation: R Srirangan v. Indian Bank, Second Appeal No. CIC/IBANK/A/2021/129197 CIC/IBANK/A/2021/119484; 10.05.2023