Action taken on complaint - PIO: Concerned department has not taken any action as it relates to business decision of the branch - CIC: Complaint was pertaining to the misconduct of their bank’s branch; the status of his complaint could have been provided

Action taken on complaint - PIO: Concerned department has not taken any action as it relates to business decision of the branch - CIC: Since the subject matter of the complaint was pertaining to the misconduct of their bank’s branch only, therefore, the status of his complaint could have been provided to the appellant ab initio; Obtain the desired information i.e. Action taken on his complaint and broad outcome from the competent officer of the concerned branch

ORDER

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) M/o. Finance, Department of Financial Services, New Delhi. The appellant seeking information is as under:-

2. No reply of CPIO is placed on record. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has filed first appeal dated 14-06-2021 and requested that the information should be provided to him. No reply of FAA is placed on record. He has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to him and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.

Hearing:

3. The appellant did not attend the hearing despite being served the hearing notice. The respondent, Shri K.M. Nandakumar, CPIO/ Under Secretary along with Shri Darshan Singh, ASO, M/o. Finance, Department of Financial Services, New Delhi attended the hearing in person. Shri Anuj Kumar Singh, Chief Manager, O/o Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai attended the hearing through video-conferencing.

4. The respondent submitted their written submission and the same has been taken on record.

5. Shri Anuj Kumar Singh, Chief Manager, O/o Indian Overseas Bank submitted that vide their letter dated 31.10.2021, they have provided an appropriate reply to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.

Decision:

6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought action taken on his complaint dated 04.01.2021. It has been observed that the concerned CPIO i.e. Shri R. Mahalaxmi, CPIO, O/o Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vide their letter dated 31.10.2021 had informed the appellant that “the concerned department has not taken any action as it relates to business decision of the branch.” After going through the reply furnished by the CPIO, the Commission is of the view that the reply given by their office is not satisfactory. Since the subject matter of the complaint was pertaining to the misconduct of their bank’s branch only, therefore, the status of his complaint could have been provided to the appellant ab initio.

7. In light of the above observations, the Commission deems it fit to direct the concerned CPIO, O/o Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai to obtain the desired information i.e. action taken on his complaint dated 04.01.2021 and broad outcome from the competent officer of the concerned branch within the bank who has taken decision on his complaint and provide the same to the appellant within 30 days from the date of receipt of such information from the competent officer.

8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Neeraj Kumar Gupta

Information Commissioner

Citation: Mr. S. Karuppasamy v. M/o. Finance, Department of Financial Services, Second Appeal No. CIC/MOFIN/A/2021/132178; 12-12-2022