O R D E R

(04.10.2023)

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated Nil include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 18.09.2021 and first appeal dated 22.11.2021-  In the matter of charge sheet served to vide letter RO/KOLM/HRD/DAD/2017.18/02/369 dated 16.02.2018 and charge No 1(a) 3 the Inquiring Authority has stated the charge as Not Proved, but as a Disciplinary Authority Mr A K Arora, DGM, CO, Murnbal have quoted MEX

1.4 and stated the same as Proved:

(i) Please inform the grounds for stating the charge as Proved and also (ii) Inform whether the debit entry of Rs 8 Laths as mentioned in the charge sheet outstanding in BGL head No 52537015002

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 18.09.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Central Bank, Mumbai seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 26.10.2021 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 22.11.2021 The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order21.12.2021 replied to appellant and dispose of the appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated Nil before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated Nil 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 26.10.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:- (i) “With respect to your Online RTI application, it is stated that the "Ground" for considering the charges as proved does not cornet under the definition of 'information- under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.

(ii) As regard to point no.2 In BGL as an internal nominal account of the bank ,the information regarding the entries in account cannot be given as it is exempted under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act”

The FAA vide order dated 21.12.2021 upheld CPIO reply.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri V. Devendra, Regional Head/CPIO, Central Bank of India, Kolkata attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had narrated a situation and had sought the reason or logic for stating a particular charge as “proved”. They further stated that providing reason or logic which was not available in material form was not covered within the definition of “information” under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that due reply was given by the CPIO on 26.10.2021 as whenever a charge sheet is issued, the same is accompanied with self- contained imputations of misconduct and the oral or documentary evidence through which the same is proposed to be proved. Further, in the absence of the appellant or any written objections thereof, the averments made by the respondent were taken on record. There appears to be no public interest in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/- (Suresh Chandra) (सुरेशचं(cid:8)ा)

Information Commissioner (सूचनाआय(cid:14)ु )

(cid:21)दनांक/Date: 04.10.2023 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत#)

Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक)

011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)

Addresses of the parties:

THE CPIO CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA KOLKATA (NORTH)

REGIONAL OFFICE, CENTRAL BANK BUILDING, 4TH FLOOR, 33, NETAJI SUBHASH ROAD, KOLKATA-700001 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA KOLKATA (NORTH)

REGIONAL OFFICE, CENTRAL BANK BUILDING, 4TH FLOOR, 33, NETAJI SUBHASH ROAD, KOLKATA-700001 SH. RAKESH M LEUA