O R D E R

(13.03.2019)

1. The issues under consideration arising out of second appeal dated 20.11.2017 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 23.09.2016 and first appeal dated 10.02.2017:

(i) Whether any staff personally know(s) the procedure of rectifying such mistake (depositing the amount in wrong finacial year/field)

or not? Please give the name’s of the staff.

(ii) When Rs.55000/- will be reflected in my Form 26AS for financial year 2016-17.

(iii) When Rs.3752/- will be rectified (Case no.2).

(iv) Does the whole bank depend on outsourcing in all the matters of IT related matters.

(v) Is it the responsibility of UCO Bank to deposit the income-tax of ex-staff in the end of financial year if yes? Give the details of the ex-staff whose income-tax were deposited by Head office and different Zonal Offices.

(vi) Who are the designated officers for income-tax related matters in Head Office and different Zonal Offices for the last 3 years.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 23.09.2016 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), UCO Bank, Sarani, Kolkata, seeking the aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 19.01.2017. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 10.02.2017. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 20.03.2017. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 20.11.2017 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 20.11.2017 inter alia on the grounds that CPIO :

(i) did not answer to my queries under RTI Act, 2005;

(ii) did not answer to the letters of Income Tax Office (iii) misguided the complainant (iv) misleaded and threatened the complainant by giving false reference (v) wrongly disposed the genuine complaint without solving it.

4. The CPIO replied on 19.01.2017 that the application was not accompanied with the prescribed fee of Rs. 10/-. The FAA upheld the rejection of RTI application by the CPIO and held that appellant submitted unsigned application and did not file fresh RTI after its rejection.

5. The appellant remained absent and respondents Mr. Upendra Pati, CPIO, Mr. Praveer Kumar Ghosh and Mr. Nishitosh Kumar Pandey, Senior Manager (Law), UCO Bank, Zonal Office, Kolkata, attended the hearing through video conferencing.

5.1. The respondent submitted that Mr. Anjan Kumar Ghosh has been making multiple RTI applications and a number of applications have already been replied. He is a chronic habitual of filing RTI applications repeatedly. However, he in his RTI application sought information on two points: (i) that how his LFC was withheld and that he may be allowed to inspect the letter which was addressed to him by Zonal Head CPIO along with ledgers where its details had been noted; and (ii) what action was taken by the Zonal Office, Kolkata, on his letter dated 14.01.2015. The respondent submitted that they have replied the queries framed by the appellant several times related to his LFC and the correspondences made.

However, they could not come out with specific reply and specific letter.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, directs the respondent to provide specific reply with response to his aforementioned two points in the RTI application, within 15 days of receipt of this order and the appellant may also be asked, if he wants to inspect the concerned relevant file which he is referring to in his RTI application. With these directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) ( )

सरु ेश च(cid:3)ं ा

Information Commissioner ( )

सचू ना आय(cid:8)ु

/ Date: 13.03.2019 (cid:13)दनांक