File Nos. CIC/SH/A/2015/002262, CIC/SH/A/2016/000751 and CIC/SH/A/2016/001195. Case: Archana Priya Dhanshri Vs Central Public Information Officer, UCO Bank. Central Information Commission
| Case Number | File Nos. CIC/SH/A/2015/002262, CIC/SH/A/2016/000751 and CIC/SH/A/2016/001195 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Kamlesh Kumar, Adv. and For Respondents: A.K. Aery, Chief Manager and Navdeep Kumar, Sr. Manager |
| Judges | Sharat Sabharwal, Information Commissioner |
| Issue | Right To Information Act, 2005 - Section 20 |
| Judgement Date | February 01, 2017 |
| Court | Central Information Commission |
|
|
Decision Sharat Sabharwal, Information Commissioner 1. These files contain appeals in respect of the RTI applications dated 29.7.2015, 9.12.2015 and 19.2.2016, filed by the Appellant, seeking information regarding the leave record of an employee of the bank and information concerning the action taken by the Respondents on certain complaints filed by her and her father. Not satisfied with the response of the Respondents, the Appellant has approached the CIC in second appeal in all the three cases. 2. With regard to the RTI application dated 29.7.2015 (file No. 2262), seeking information concerning the leave record, the representative of the Appellant stated that the information has been provided, but with considerable delay. The CPIO sent a reply dated 16.12.2015, which was despatched by registered post on 9.1.2016 and was received by the Appellant on 11.1.2016. He sought penal action against the CPIO. The representative of the Respondents stated that the information was provided after he attended to the RTI applications on becoming CPIO. 3. Regarding the RTI application dated 9.12.2015 (file No. 751), the representative of the Appellant stated that no reply was sent to the Appellant. The Respondents submitted that a reply has been sent on 24.1.2017 by registered post. The representative of the Appellant acknowledged that it has been received yesterday (31.1.2017). However, he again prayed for penal action against the CPIO because of a delayed reply. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the parties in respect of the RTI applications dated 29.7.2015 and 9.12.2015. While it is true that the replies were sent by the Respondents with considerable delay, we note that in certain appeals coming to us against the Respondent bank in the past, it was brought to our notice that the Respondent bank did not have a satisfactory system of responding to RTI applications and response to a number of applications got delayed. In view of the... |
To continue reading
Request your trial