ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.08.2022 seeking information on the following points:

(i) I had applied on 06/01/2021 to UCO bank Zonal office financial inclusion Guwahati for Dudhnath CSP re-open.so I need order copy. (ii) I had applied on 05/04/2022 to UCO bank Zonal office Guwahati for Dudhnath CSP re- open.so I need order copy. (iii) Which bank officer and company officer are currently giving CSP ID of UCO bank of Raniganj Branch? Please give a copy with their name and address.

(iv) I applied on 08/11/2021 to UCO bank Head office financial inclusion for Dudhnath CSP re-open.so I need order copy. (v) I applied on 23/03/2021 to UCO bank Head office financial inclusion for Dudhnath CSP re-open.so I need order copy.”…etc.

2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 01.11.2022. The FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record.

3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the desired information, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 20.12.2022.

4. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Khirli Pienyu, AGM & CPIO along with S K Patra attended the hearing through video conference.

5. The Appellant stated that he has not received any information on the instant RTI Application till date.

6. The Respondent reiterated the contents of their written submission dated 16.04.2024 stating as under:

“In this context, we would like to inform you that on 21.12.2023, on receipt of the hearing notice no. CIC/UCOBK/A/2022/143834 dated 01.12.2023, we made our appearance before the Hon'ble Information Commissioner and accordingly on the direction, we have complied by way of reply to the queries asked in the second appeal within the stipulated time. It is pertinent to mention here that by Order dated 21.12.2023, it is categorically made clear that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the instant application by the appellant may be listed together for hearing and a common order to be passed in all the matters. However, we are once again in receipt of a notice dated 04.04.2024, wherein we have been asked to appear before the Hon'ble Information Commissioner on the date mentioned, where the subject complainant/Appellant is same to the Complainant in the earlier notice. In view of the above, we believe that the queries which sought earlier and replies given may be treated as reply to the instant notice.”

7. The Commission was baffled at the sheer complacency of the Respondent in coming across as being absolutely alien to the concept of the RTI Act or its mandate as it was being naively suggested that their sole reply of 21.12.2023 suffices all the past, present and future RTI Applications of the Appellant and that the Commission ought not to call upon the Respondent office for hearing any matters in the aftermath of the order dated 21.12.2023. At this point, the CPIO submitted that he is not aware of the RTI Application under reference as he has not received a copy of it. Incidentally, the Commission had observed of the failure of CPIO to reply to the RTI Application in File No. CIC/UCOBK/A/2022/143834 and in that case also, the CPIO said that the RTI Application was not received. In this backdrop, the CPIO was asked to explain as to how none of the RTI Applications are received by the Respondent office, neither at the original instance, nor by way of the copy served by the Commission with the notice of hearing.

However, no explanation was forthcoming except for submitting that they will provide a reply to the instant RTI Application within 2 days and upon a further query, it was submitted that the concerned then CPIO has retired from service in the year 2023.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, is aghast at the conduct and the submissions of the CPIO. Pertinently so, even