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/2024/619939 Bharat Kumar Goyal … अपीलकता१/Appellant VERSUS बनाम CPIO: Madhyanchal Gramin B ank, Sagar, MP …ঋितवादीगण/Respondents Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 03.03.2024 FA : 03.04.2024 SA : Nil.

CPIO : 30.03.2024 FAO : 22.04.2024 Hearing : 05.05.2025 Date of Decision: 14.05.2025 CORAM:

Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.03.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1. Madhyanchal gramin bank ho sagar ke pripatr kramank karmik/2023-24/05 dinaak 20/05/2023 ke kram mai atirikt avkash nagdikaran ki rashi ke bhugtan avedan dinak 28/08/2023 ko ro shivpuri ke madhyam se presit kiya gaya jiska aapke dwara aaj dinak tak bhugtan kyo nahi kiya gaya.

2. Uprokt pripatr ke kram mai bhugtan hetu aapke dwara sewanivrat union se varta mai lagatar seegra nirakaran keya jana bataya ja raha hai jabki mujhe pg portal ki sikayat ke pratiuttar mai aapke patr kramank karmik/2023-24/791 dinak 03/01/2024 evam patr kramank satarkta mu.ku.kha./2023-24/602 dinaak

06/01/2024 mai gumrah kar patrta nahi hona kyo bataya ja raha hai jabki uprokt paripatr anusar atirikt avkash nagdikaran ki patrta hai

3. Krpya uprokt avkash nagdikaran ke bhuktan ki nirdharit dinak se avgat karate hue bhugtan dinaak tak ka intt. Bhutan kare.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 30.03.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-

“सेवािनवृित प(cid:686)ात आवेदक को पाআता अनुमार अिधकतम 240 िदवस का अिज१त * अवकाश का भुगतान िकया जा चुका है एवं पूव१ म७ भी इसकी जानकारी संल্ पআो के

मा(cid:559)म से आवेदक को ঋेिषत की जा चुकी है।”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.04.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 22.04.2024 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, CPIO, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent did not provide accurate information. Further, the respondent authority had caused unreasonable delay in initiating action upon his application for leave encashment.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had raised a personal grievance through his RTI application, seeking reasons behind alleged inaction at their end. Therefore, the CPIO had instead of clarifying his queries has provided the updated status on his application. Further, on receipt of the hearing notice they had taken up the appellant’s case and had paid him the leave encashment arrears.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has not disposed of the RTI application, as per provisions of the RTI Act. The CPIO admitted during the hearing that they had resolved the appellant’s grievance and had paid the leave encashment arrears. However, point-wise reply has not been given by the CPIO, as per provisions of the RTI Act. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to provide a revised para-wise reply to the appellant, as per provisions of the RTI Act, within 15 days from the date of RTI Act, under intimation to the Commission. Further, the CPIO is also directed to send a proper written explanation to the Commission for not giving a correct response to the instant RTI Application, as per provisions of the RTI Act. The written explanation of the CPIO shall be sent to the Commission both through post and via uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper-compliance/add within 15 days of the receipt of this order. Accordingly, the