O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.05.2023 seeking information on the following points:

(i) “Provide the of branches where agriculture field officer posted in Bank of Baroda (ii) How many agriculture field officer working as manager and joint manager along with the responsibility of both credit and operation department.”

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 17.06.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

(i) “Sought information is no specific however number of branches in Bank of Baroda where Agriculture Field Officer is posted – 108.

(ii) All Agriculture Field Officers working in 108 branches are working as Agriculture Field Officer only.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.06.2023. The FAA vide order dated 20.07.2023 observed that the Appellant has added a word “List” at appellate stage which was missing at application stage. Appellant tried to fill the gap at appellate stage resulting in new query which could not be considered at this stage. Further, in the backdrop of the RTI Application and CPIO’s reply, the CPIO was directed to “re-examine the reply given to RTI Application in the matter on merits and reply suitably.”

4. In compliance with the FAA’s order, the CPIO provided a reply dated 31.07.2023 incorporating a list of branches where agricultural filed officers were posted and for point no.2, it was stated that clarifications are not covered under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

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

6. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, Rajesh D Sharma, DGM & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.

7. The Respondent submitted that despite the fact that the Appellant did not specify whether he was asking information regarding list of branches or number of branches where agricultural filed officers were posted, yet both the categories of information was provided to him vide their replies dated 17.06.2023 and 31.07.2023. He further submitted that in the second appeal, the Appellant is agitating against not providing information regarding “agricultural officers”, which he has already sought for vide three earlier RTI Applications. It was also pointed out that so far, the Appellant has filed almost 16 RTI Application(s)

which are also repetitive in nature.

8. The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO & FAA have facilitated the Appellant adequately in keeping with the letter and spirit of the RTI Act. Further, keeping in view the submissions of the CPIO and the absence of the Appellant to plead his case, no action is warranted in the matter.

9. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.

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

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) ( )

आनदं ी राम(cid:4)लगं म Information Commissioner ( )

सचू ना आय(cid:11)ु

/Date: 25.09.2024 (cid:20)दनांक Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) ( )

कन(cid:14)ल एस एस िछकारा ((cid:22)रटायड)(cid:14)

Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)

011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO Bank Of Baroda, DGM & CPIO, Head Office, Operations & Services Department, Baroda Bhawan, 7th Floor, R. C. Dutt Road, Alkapuri, Baroda, Gujarat-390007

2. Surender Aol Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powerd by TCPDF (w.tcpdf.org)