O R D E R

(19.10.2023)

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 28.02.2022 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 11.10.2021 and first appeal dated 23.12.2021:- (i) Whether any inquiry was conducted before issuing the letter No- RO/RECVLAW /2018-19149. Provide a copy of inquiry report along with the name and designation inquiry officers.

(ii) Whether subsequent Legal search Report dated 07.09.2018 obtained from Panel Advocate Mr. Rajeev Jaisawal is correct or misconceived. Provide copy of Legal Search report dated 07.09.2018.

(iii) Whether the physical verification report obtained from Panel valuor is correct or misconceived, provide copy of physical verification along with the valuation report.

(iv) Whether the physical verification report submitted by bank officer and branch manager is correct or misconceived, please provide a copy of the physical verification report submitted by bank officer and branch manager.

(v) Provide KYC of the seller Mr. Ram Surat Singh son of Sri Shiv Sevak and Purchasers Mr. Mohammed Buland Khan son of Sri Iqbal.

(vi) Provide a copy of the agreement to sell dated 28.07.2016 executed by Mr. Ram Surat Singh son of Sri Shiv Sevak in the favor of Mr. Mohammed Buland Khan son of Sri lqbal.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 11.10.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Central Bank of India, Lucknow, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 15.12.2021 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 23.12.2021. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 05.01.2022 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 28.02.2022 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 28.02.2022 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 15.12.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:- “i) This letter was issued to you after giving Show-cause notice & reply given by you which was considered by the higher authorities.

ii, iii & iv) cannot be provided as per the exemptions provided of RTI Act u/s 8 (1)

(d) (e) & (j) of the RTI application.

v & vi) cannot be provided as per the exemptions provided of RTI Act u/s 8 (1)

(j) of the RTI application.

The FAA vide order dated 05.01.2022 agreed to the reply given by the CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Rohit Kumar Singh, Regional Head, Central Bank of India, Lucknow attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he was a panel counsel in the Union Bank of India and in Central Bank of India. He stated that he had provided satisfactory services from time to time for more than six years, and his work and conduct were admired by the superiors. The appellant informed that the Assistant General Manager/Deputy Regional Manager gave him a Show Cause notice dated 01.02.2019 which was replied by him on 20.02.2019. However, he contended that the respondent had removed him from the bank’s panel on the charges of professional misconduct/ wrongdoings. The appellant stated that he was not informed the recorded reasons for his de-empanelment till the date of hearing. 5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that point-wise reply was given by the respondent vide letter dated 15.12.2021. They informed that deficiency was found in the legal search report made by the appellant in respect of a particular property. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant and after considering all the facts including the