O R D E R

(06.09.2023)

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 04.01.2021 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 02.12.2021 and first appeal dated 31.12.2021 :- (i) The Head Office orders the transfer of clerical employee from one branch to another branch then the branch manager has to do the relieved or can the employee himself join the given branch.

(ii) If the branch manager of branch or zonal officer do not obey the order of the head office, then what action can be proposed against him.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 02.12.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Bank of Maharashtra, Pune. The CPIO vide letter dated 28.12.2021 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 31.12.2021. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 27.01.2022 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 04.01.2021 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 04.01.2021 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 28.12.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:- (i) On transfer, relieving of a clerical employee can be done only by competent authorities of Branch, Zonal Office and Head Office. A clerical employee cannot join new place of posting, without being relieved by the said authorities.

(ii) Query sought is not an information under the RTI Act, 2005.

The FAA vide order dated 27.01.2022 concurred with the reply given by the CPIO.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Gaurav Tyagi,, Assistant General Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Pune, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the specific probation period for individual employees were mentioned in their appointment letter. Moreover, the appellant had raised queries which were unclear and hypothetical, hence, could not be addressed under RTI.

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 28.12.2021. It may be noted that the appellant had raised hypothetical and non-specific queries which did not fall within the definition of “information” under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. Therefore, the information not being in material form, there appears to be no infirmity with the reply given by the CPIO. 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) (सरु ेशच(cid:8)ं ा)

Information Commissioner (सूचनाआय(cid:14)ु )

(cid:13)दनांक/Date: 06.09.2023 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममतू (cid:8))

Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक)

011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)

Addresses of the parties:

The CPIO Bank of Maharashtra, Lokmangal, 1501, Shivaji Nagar, Pune- 411005 First Appellate Authority Bank of Maharashtra, Lokmangal, 1501, Shivaji Nagar, Pune- 411005 Shri Yogesh Bhongade