के(cid:3)(cid:4)ीयसचू नाआयोग Central Information Commission बाबागंगनाथमाग(cid:19),मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नईिदtiली, New Delhi – 110067 ि(cid:27)तीयअपीलस(cid:31)ं या / Second Appeal No.CIC/UBIND/A/2020/676602 Amrita Priyadarsini Patro … अपीलकता(cid:19)/Appellant VERSUS बनाम CPIO: Union Bank of India Nariman Point, Mumbai …!ितवादीगण/Respondents Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

Hon’ble Commissioner SHRI SURESH CHANDRA

O R D E R

(08.08.2022)

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 16.04.2020 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 20.01.2020 and first appeal dated 06.03.2020:-

(cid:1) Relates to the appellant’s charge sheet no. NRO/HRD/AOC/631/1/ dated

02.11.2018 (i) Copy of vigilance investigation report on which basis chargesheet issued to the appellant.

(ii) Reason for filing FIR making her accused and name of person, who approved filing of FIR.

(iii) Total loss quantified on alleged lapse booked to profit and loss account.

(iv) Affidavit by the investigating officer, who investigated strictly as per vigilance manual.

(v) Dates of actual enquiry with attendance sheet and proceedings.

(vi) Letter of disciplinary authority proposing punishment to CVO before issuance of final order and approval letter of vigilance department.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 20.01.2020 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Union Bank of India, Nariman Point, Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 26.02.2020replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 06.03.2020. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) did not pass any order. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 16.04.2020 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 16.04.2020 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 26.02.2020 and the same is reproduced as under:-

(i) “Charge sheet has been issued based on the lapses observed on your part during your tenure at Koraput Branch.

(ii) Reason for filing FIR is not covered under RTI as information. However, the name of the official who approved filing of FIR cannot be disclosed under clause 8 (1)

(g) of RTI Act.

(iii) Rs. 39,63,368.01 (iv) Not applicable under RTI.

(v) As the inquiry was not attended by you, the proceedings of the inquiry were sent to you at the address available on bank’s record.

(vi) No such advice is sought from CVO before issuance of final order.”

The FAA did not pass any order.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Mr. V. K. Singh, CPIO, Union Bank of India, Bandra, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had already point-wise information to the appellant vide letter dated 26.02.2020.

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 respondent vide letter dated 26.02.2020. Moreover, the appellant neither filed any written objection nor presented herself before the Commission to controvert the averments made by the respondent and further agitate the matter. Hence, the submissions of the respondent were taken on record. The Commission is of the view that there is no public interest in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to