1.

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.09.2021 seeking information on the

following points:

(i)

“The authority by which Mr. Rajat Mishra, CM-HRD has changed the decision

of disciplinary authority and inflicted upon me from retirement date

(retrospective date).

(ii)

Copy of Central Bank Law & Regulation in connection with that also be given

to me.”

2.

The CPIO replied vide letter dated 11.10.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:-

Page 2 of 5

i.

“Since you had been retired from Bank's services of on 30.06.2017 and the

penalty of "Dismissal" cannot be effected after date of retirement and also in

view of invocation of Regulation 20.3(iii) of OSR, it is implied that the imposed

penalty vide final Order should be inflicted from the last working day of your

Bank's service i.e. your date of retirement. Hence, there is no change in the

decision of penalty awarded by DA i.e. "Dismissal".

ii.

The required information/document is not specified by you, as there is no such

law in the name and title of "CBI Law & Regulation" is there.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First

Appeal dated 12.11.2021. The FAA vide order dated 06.12.2021 provided a detailed

explanation conveying that ‘the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority has not

been changed by the Competent Authority through Administrative Order.’

4.

Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with

the instant Second Appeal dated 31.01.2022.

5.

The Appellant was present through video conference and on behalf of the

Respondent, Darshan Kumar Dhingra, AGM & Rep. of CPIO attended the hearing through

video conference.

6.

The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI Application and feebly questioned

the alleged addition of the date of inflicting the penalty in the punishment awarded by the

DA etc.

7.

The Respondent submitted that adequate clarification has already been provided to

the Appellant in the matter.

8.

The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and

perusal of records, observes that in a strict sense, the Appellant has not sought for any

information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, rather he has asked for a justification and

inference to be drawn by the CPIO. Nonetheless, the CPIO provided clarifications to the

Appellant and the FAA supplemented the CPIO’s reply by describing at length the

modalities of the averred award of punishment.

Page 3 of 5

9. For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that

outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and

inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the

CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject

to penal provisions under the RTI Act.

In this regard, the Appellant’s attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE

vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held

as under:

“35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI

Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing………A

public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of

inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or

`opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice'

to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information'

in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the

public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide

advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not

be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.” (Emphasis Supplied)