File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/002035, File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/003078, File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/001600, File No CIC/SH/A/2014/001911, File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/001774, File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/002165, File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/002166, File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/002229, File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/002328, File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/002394, File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/002805, File .... Case: Ashoka Saxena Vs Central Public Information Officer, Union Bank of India and Ors.. Central Information Commission
| Case Number | File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/002035, File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/003078, File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/001600, File No CIC/SH/A/2014/001911, File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/001774, File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/002165, File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/002166, File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/002229, File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/002328, File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/002394, File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/002805, File ... |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Party-in-Person and For Respondents: Atul Khatari, Senior Manager |
| Judges | Sharat Sabharwal, Information Commissioner |
| Issue | Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 18, 20 |
| Judgement Date | August 25, 2015 |
| Court | Central Information Commission |
|
|
Decision: Sharat Sabharwal, Information Commissioner 1. These files contain appeals in respect of sixteen RTI applications, filed by the Appellant to various offices of the bank, seeking information on certain service matters and the disciplinary proceedings conducted against him. Not satisfied with the response of the Respondents, he has approached the CIC in second appeal in all the cases. 2. Regarding the RTI application dated 16.1.2014 (File No. 2035), the Appellant stated that an amount of Rs. 2602/- was deducted towards PF from his emoluments, but was credited to his PF account with considerable delay. He wanted to know the rules of the bank regarding the period within which such deductions should be credited to the respective accounts. The Appellant stated that the above information has not been provided. The Respondents stated that the information concerning the credit to the PF account was provided by them on 4.7.2012 in response to an earlier RTI application. They have no rules prescribing a specific period within which such credits should be made. The general practice of the bank is to make such credits as quickly as possible. The Appellant complained that the credit was made after a gap of five months. In this context, we note that the Commission cannot address the grievance of the Appellant regarding delayed credit under the RTI Act. In so far as the RTI application is concerned, we note that the information stands provided to the Appellant and no further action is due on it. 3. In the RTI application dated 27.8.2012 (File No. 3078), the Appellant had enquired as to why the First Appellate Authority did not impose penalty on the CPIO and the reasons for non-availability of his leave records etc. The CPIO replied on 29.9.2012 and informed the Appellant that some of the queries of his RTI application, seeking reasons/explanation, did not fall within the ambit of information under the RTI Act and the remaining information sought by him was not available. The Appellant stated that an amount of Rs. 805/- was deducted from his emoluments for credit to his PF account in December 1999. However, the credit does not figure in his PF account. The Respondents stated that they have made a thorough search and the information being old is not available. In view of the position stated by the Respondents, intervention by the Commission is not considered necessary in this case. 4. In the RTI application dated 30.12.2013 (File No. 1600), the Appellant asked the Respondents to explain their statement, made in one of their communications, regarding his having filed a certain number of RTI requests and appeals etc. and whether there were any limitations/restrictions on making RTI applications. Our notice dated 28.7.2015 for today's hearing clearly stated that the hearing would be, inter alia, on the above mentioned RTI application... |
To continue reading
Request your trial