Public authorities must provide complete and accurate information under the RTI Act to ensure transparency and accountability.

O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.05.2023 seeking information on the following points:

(i) Month wise certified details of Account Name and Number via which Salary was credited to the said Account (**********9530) from 1st April 2006 to 31 August 2008.

(ii) Certified Bank Statement from 1st April 2006 to 31st August 2008.

(iii) Certified copy of documents taken on record in 2006 for financing HUDA Plot application of Sh. Om Parkash Gaur regarding draw of plots in Sector 64, Faridabad by HUDA/ HSVP.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 25.05.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

i. Salary was credited by S.D.E. HUDA DIV.

ii. Attached.

iii. The documents are not available as the same has been destroyed as per Bank’s record keeping policy.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.06.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 30.06.2023 stated that:

i. The details has been provided to you by the Branch on 30.06.2023.

ii. Statement for the account no. **********9530 from 01.04.2006 to 31.08.2008 has been emailed on email id mentioned in captioned appeal i.e.

gaurom@gmail.com

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 09.07.2023.

5. The appellant remained present along with authorized representative Adv. Prem Mohan Gaur in person and the respondent remained absent.

6. The appellant’s representative inter alia submitted that his father i.e. the Appellant was falsely implicated in a corruption case in year 2007 regarding the same they are trying to get some information from the Bank. The respondent has provided misleading information on point No. 1 of the RTI Application, in which they had sought month wise certified details of Account Name and Number via which Salary was credited. He averred that they clearly requested the name and the account No. which the Respondent failed to provide. He explained that the account name and number of December 2006 has been given from two different sub-divisions, which should have been given from the same sub-

division. In one document it was said the transaction was done from sub-division 6 and in another reply, it was said that the transaction was made from sub-division 13. He questioned that how can a single transaction can be done from two different sub-divisions for the same month and the same date, thereby claiming that the reply provided by the Respondent is misleading.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Appellant and perusal of records, directs the Respondent to re-examine and provide suitable revised reply on point No. 1 of the RTI Application to the Appellant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.

In addition, since the CPIO remained absent during the hearing proceedings to present their case, the CPIO is directed to send a proper written explanation for disregarding the Commission’s notice of hearing by not appearing before the Commission. The written explanation of the CPIO shall be sent to the Commission both through post and via uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper-compliance/add within 15 days of the receipt of this order. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.