के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई निल्ली, New Delhi – 110067 नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2024/606838 Bhupinder Pal Singh … अपीलकताग/Appellant (Bank Of India)

VERSUS बनाम The CPIO: Reserve Bank of India, Enforcement …प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents Department, Central Office, Mezzanine Floor, Main Building, Fort, Mumbai

400001 Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 14.06.2021 FA : 04-12-2023 SA : 19.02.2024 CPIO : 29-11-2023 FAO : 17-01-2024 Hearing : 05.01.2026 Date of Interim Decision:05.01.2026 CORAM:

Information Commissioner Khushwant Singh Sethi

O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.06.2021 seeking information on the following points:

“Please provide following information in respect of Press Release: 2021-2022/331 dated 07.06.2021 issued by Reserve Bank of India imposing monetary penalty of R.

4.00 Crore (Rupees Four Crore only) on Bank of India for non-compliance with certain provisions of directions issued by RBI

7.1 Copy of Statutory Inspection Reports;

Copy of the Compliance Report if any; 7.2.

7.3. Copy of the provisions which are not complied;

7.4. Copy of Show Cause Notice issued;

7.5. Copy of Written Reply filed by the Bank along with documents submitted therewith, 7.6. Copy of Proceeding of Personal Hearing afforded to the Bank, 7.7. Copy of Order imposing Penalty of R. 4.00 Crore;”

2. The CPIO issued notice dated 1.09.2023 U/s 11 of the RTI Act to the third- party/appellant - herein Bank of India, in compliance with the Commission’s decision dated 12.06.2023 in case no. CIC/RBIND/A/2021/643553 & CIC/RBIND/A/2021/660293. After taking submissions of the aforesaid bank, the respondent decided to disclose the following information and replied to the third-

party/appellant vide letter dated 29-11-2023 as follows:-

“ 15. For the reasons discussed above, I am of the considered view that copy of the documents as detailed in the table below may be disclosed to Shri Ashok Kumar Pandya, after duly severing the information exempt from disclosure, in accordance with the provisions of section 10 of RTI Act. The details of the documents intended to be disclosed after redaction as indicated in the notice dated September 11, 2023.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant/third-party filed a First Appeal dated 04.12.2023 seeking to set aside the CPIO’s reply dated

29.11.2023. The FAA vide order dated 17-01-2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant/third-party approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 19.02.2024.

5. On behalf of the respondent, Mr. S.N. Chattopadhyay, General Manager, attended the hearing through video conference. The appellant’s authorized representatives Mr. Ashish Rana & Mr. Gaurav Raj, Ld. Advocates, arrived late, and appeared in-person before the Commission after completion of the hearing.

6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they have complied with the Commission’s decision dated 12.06.2023 in case no. CIC/RBIND/A/2021/643553 & CIC/RBIND/A/2021/660293 and decided to disclose the information after severing the exempted portions as per the RTI Act.

7. Written submission dated 01.01.2026 filed by the respondent is taken on record.

Upon the Commission’s query, on whether they have served a copy of their written submission to the appellant/third-party (herein Bank of India), the respondent submitted in positive to the same.

Upon the Commission’s query, on whether they have served a copy of their written submission to the original RTI Applicant Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandya, the respondent submitted in negative to the same.

8. The appellant’s authorized representatives appeared late i.e., after the completion of the hearing. However, upon the Commission’s query as to whether they have received the copy of written submission from the respondent, the appellant/third-party affirmed in positive to th