Information regarding status of appellant’s sick leave & payment of his medical claim was sought - CIC observed that the information was provided after the filing of second appeal; notice issued to PIO u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act for imposing penalty
9 Sep, 2015ORDER
CIC/MP/A/2014/001664
1. The appellant submitted RTI application dated September 2, 2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Chapra; seeking information regarding final decision taken on his sick leave from 11.2.2010 to 18.3.2010 which was under consideration as he was informed vide letter dated 29.7.2013.
2. The appellant preferred appeal dated October 17, 2013 to the first appellate authority (FAA) when no information was provided to him within the stipulated time period given under RTI Act, 2005. Vide order dated November 7, 2013; the FAA directed the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) to provide the information within 10 days. Vide letter dated February 25, 2014, Chief Manager, Network 3 while deciding the non compliance of the FAA’s order; directed the CPIO to send a copy of reply which was sent to the appellant in compliance of the FAA’s order.
3. Dissatisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant submitted that he had sought information regarding status of his sick leave but till date no information had been provided to him nor his grievance had been resolved by the respondents.
CIC/MP/A/2014/002177
1. The appellant submitted RTI application dated September 2, 2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Chapra; seeking information regarding action taken on the compliance of FAA’s order dated 30.5.2013 pertaining to payment of his medical claim.
2. The appellant preferred appeal dated October 17, 2013 to the first appellate authority (FAA) when no reply was received by him within the stipulated time period given under RTI Act, 2005. Vide order dated November 7, 2013; the FAA directed the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) to provide the information within 10 days. Vide letter dated February 25, 2014, Chief Manager, Network 3 while deciding the non compliance of the FAA’s order; directed the CPIO to send a copy of reply which was sent to the appellant in compliance of the FAA’s order.
3. Dissatisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
4. Both the above mentioned matters were heard by the Commission jointly on the request of the appellant as the subject matter of both the RTI applications was similar. The appellant submitted that he had sought information regarding status of his sick leave and payment of his medical claim but no information had been provided to him nor his grievance had been resolved by the respondents so far. Even the CPIO concerned had not complied with the FAA’s order on two occasions. He also stated that he had already retired from the service but still his pending dues had not been paid to him.
5. The respondents submitted that they had sent two separate replies to the appellant through their letter dated 8.5.2015 in which they had informed the appellant on RTI –I (CIC/MP/A/2014/001664) that his sick leave for the period between 1.2.2010 to 23.3.2010 was not sanctioned by the then Branch Manger and on RTIII (CIC/MP/A/2014/002177), that the appellant’s medical bill of Rs.9991.26/ was returned without sanctioning and making payment because he had not taken the prior permission for expenditure estimate by the competent officer before consulting the dental doctor which was mandatory as per the Circular dated 5.12.2012 respectively.
6. The Commission observes that the information sought by the appellant had been provided by the respondents after his filing the second appeal therefore the Commission allows the appellant to make an appeal against the information provided, if he desires. The Commission also issues notice to the CPIO concerned u/s 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. of the RTI Act, 2005 to show cause as to why a penalty should not be imposed on him for such a long delay in supply of information to the appellant as mandated under the Act. He should submit his written submission to the Commission within 2 weeks of the receipt of the order.
(Manjula Prasher)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Tribhuvan Prasad Singh v. State Bank of India in Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001664 CIC/MP/A/2014/002177