Appellant had worked as pigmy agent and wanted to know when he would receive the amount lying in his pygmy agent security account - PIO: appellant had absconded with the money of some depositors & FIR was lodged against him - CIC: provide the information

Appellant had worked as pigmy agent and wanted to know what is the total amount lying in his pygmy agent security account; and when would he receive the amount due to him - PIO: appellant had absconded with the money of some depositors & FIR was lodged against the appellant and the matter was under investigation - CIC: provide the information as investigation is over

ORDER

Facts

1. The appellant filed an application dated 29.08.2011 under the RTI Act, seeking information regarding whether the accounts of pygmy account holders opened by the branch while he was working as pygmy agent have been closed or not, details of the account holders and the copy of FIR, etc. CPIO denied the information vide letter dated 06.01.2012. Appellant filed first appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA) on 10.11.2011. FAA vide order dated 22.12.2011 directed the CPIO to give a fresh reply to the RTI application. Appellant filed this present second appeal on 05.10.2012.

Hearing

2. Appellant and respondent were present before the Commission.

3. Appellant referred to his RTI application of the and stated that he was seeking information regarding whether the accounts of pygmy account holders open by the branch while he was working as pygmy agent have been closed or not, details of the account holders and the copy of FIR, etc.

4. Appellant stated that he was working as pigmy agent with the respondent branch. Appellant stated that 10% of the commission received by them had to be deposited in the pygmy agent security account. Appellant stated that he had left the job as pygmy agent in 1998.

5. Appellant stated that his main focus was on the following points: (a) what is the total amount lying in his pygmy agent security account; and (b) when would he receive the amount due to him.

6. Respondent stated that the appellant was working as a pygmy agent but he absconded with the money of some depositors. Respondent stated that an FIR was lodged against the appellant and the matter was investigated.

7. Respondent stated that the appellant also had sought the information about details of other pygmy agents which was totally third party information and accordingly it was denied by the CPIO in his reply dated 06.01.2012.

8. Respondent stated that now the investigation was over and information pertaining to the account of the appellant could be provided.

Decision

9. Respondent is directed to provide to the appellant, within 30 days of this order, the information sought in para 5 above. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.

(Vijai Sharma)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Chatrapal Singh S/o Shri Mangalu Singh v. Syndicate Bank in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001761/05254