के (cid:574)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग१,मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:671)ी, New Delhi – 110067 ि(cid:554)तीय अपील संূा / Second Appeal No. CIC/MDGRB/A/2024/622747 Murari Lal Gupta … अपीलकता१/Appellant VERSUS बनाम CPIO: Madhyanchal Gramin B ank, Sagar, MP …ঋितवादीगण/Respondents Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.01.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1. Murari lal gupta (karyalay sahayak) 10745 branch sirsod ke padasthi ke doran khata kramank *****9783 mai aadhar bank end se khate mai link kiya gaya hai iski pusthi aapke patr kramank/satarkta/2019-20/357 dinaak 11-07-2019 se ki gayee hai bank niymanusar aadhar bina adhikari ke satyapan ke link kiya gaya hai jis karmik/adhikari ke dwara aadhar khate mai link kiya gaya hai uske prati bank dwara kya karwahi ki gai?

2. Bank ke paksha mai niyayalay ke nirnay dinaak 11/01/2023 ke aane ke bad smt lalita koli se bank dwara basuli hetu kya karwahi ki gai?

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 13.02.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-

“ঋ(cid:690)ाधीन सूचना ब॰क के आंतौरक जाँच काय१वाहा । से स(cid:638)ंिधत है, िजसका ঋकटन िकया जाना गोपनीयता पर अनापेि঴त आॿमण होगा ऐसी सूचना के ঋकटीकरण के अनुरोध का स(cid:638)(cid:576) िकसी साव१जिनक गितिविध से संबंिधत नही ंहै इसिलए सूचना का अिधकार अिधिनयम-200-की धारा 8(1) के अंतग१त ऐसी सूचना को ঋकट िकये जाने से िवमु्ঢ के

कारण जानकारी आपको ঋदाय नही ंकी जा सकती है।”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.02.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 27.03.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

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

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Sudhir, Senior Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had not provided the requisite information, so far. Further, while denying the information, the CPIO had not claimed any specific exemption clause, under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the erstwhile CPIO had denied the information on the ground that internal investigation was pending in the matter. During the course of hearing, the CPIO admitted that the averred matter was concerning another account-holder, Lalita Kohli. Therefore, the information was exempted under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. The CPIO further relied upon their latest written submissions dated 28.04.2025 wherein it was informed that allegations against Mr. Murali Lal Gupta were found to be proved. The submissions are extracted below:

“(cid:174)ी मरु ारीलाल ग(cid:302)ु ा (cid:300)ारा ब(cid:167)क क(cid:236) शाखा िसरसौद म(cid:164) कायाल(cid:170) य सहायक के पद पर पद(cid:214)थी के दौरान शाखा के बचत खाताधारक (cid:174)ी अिनल नागर के बचत खाता (cid:248)मांक 8023159783 म(cid:164) असंब(cid:294) (cid:211)यि(cid:265) (cid:174)ीमती लिलता कोली का आधार (cid:248)माकं िलंक हो जान े के कारण (cid:174)ीमती लिलता कोली (cid:300)ारा रािश (cid:322). 224400/- आहरण क(cid:236) गई। (cid:255)करण म(cid:164) ब(cid:167)क (cid:300)ारा शाखा िसरसौद के त(cid:194)समय के शाखा (cid:255)बंधक एव ं काया(cid:170)लय सहायक (cid:174)ी मरु ारीलाल ग(cid:302)ु ा दोन(cid:332) कािम(cid:170)क(cid:332) के िव(cid:322)(cid:294) आंत(cid:229)रक जाचं काय(cid:170)वाही क(cid:236) गई। ब(cid:167)क के तकनीक(cid:236) सेवा (cid:255)दाता C-edge (cid:300)ारा अवगत कराया गया िक, (cid:174)ी अिनल नागर के बचत खात े म(cid:164) (cid:174)ीमती लिलता कोली का आधार (cid:248)मांक (cid:174)ी मरु ारीलाल ग(cid:302)ु ा क(cid:236) सीबीएस आईडी 30179 (cid:300)ारा ही िलंक िकया पाया गया।