- NPAs under PM Modi's Mudra scheme jumped 126% in FY19
- shows RTI
- RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
- 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
- The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
- Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
- Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed
Need some clarity on how to draft the RTI for the information asked; Alternatively, please advice what other course of action to pursue?
Case of Illegal Recovery of Pension by Public Sector Bank (thereafter referred as PSB)
1) The PSB, the pension disbursal bank mistakenly overpaid the pension to the pensioner for 10 years;
2) No connivance or misrepresentation from the Pensioner; solely a mistake done by the Bank.
The over payment was detected via a CAG Audit, and the mistake of the bank as well was pointed out in the same audit
3)Now the PSB has started recovering the Pension since last 3 years, illegally.
4)No recovery order or show cause notice has been ever issued to the Pensioner by the bank or any competent authority
5)This recovery is illegal as per Apex Court judgement on Rafiq Masih's Case-
which states that no recovery can be done after 5 years of continual overpayment
6) The Pensioner has been forced to go to the court to seek redressal. Case is stuck in the court for the last 3 years
An RTI Was filed in May 2018/ Information sought and response received are as under:-
Q-2) Provide the list of all officials and their designation who dealt with this pension matter during Dec 2006 to Dec 2007 at CPPC and PSB Branch
Q-3) Name the officer who responsible for sanctioning the excess pension
Q-5) Please provide number of cases in your bank wherein excess amount of pension is being recovered
Response received (for all three questions, above) from CPIO: As informed by the Branch Manager of your branch : Information is not available
Q-4) Name the officer who is recovering my excess pension
Response received : The excess pension has been detected by the Performance Audit Team under CAG and adviced via audit memo 36 dated XX
to recover the amount of 10 Lakhs which is over paid since 1. 1. 2007. As such bank is recovering now and refunding the authority.
My Comment on Q-4:
It doesn't give the name of the officer who is recovering excess. Plus: The Audit Memo from CAG does not talk about recovery at- all. This has also
been mentioned in the affidavit by the pension sanctioning authority in the court where it states that CAG has not issued any order of recovery. So this response is misleading.
Unfortunately I was not able to file the First Appeal to the above response.
Should I file another RTI ? Is re-drafting of the questions needed? The bank is hell bent on shielding its errant officials and protecting them. Please feel free to advise me on any other course of action as deemed fit.
Central Information Commission
Decision No. 297/IC(A)/2006
F. No. CIC/MA/A/2006/00663
Dated, the 21st September, 2006
Name of the Appellant : Shri S. Gangaiah Nayakar, 3/488, Rajapalayam Salai, T. N.C.Alangulam, District - Virudhunagar-626127
Name of the Public Authority: Indian Overseas Bank, Customers Service Department, Central office, 763,Anna Salai, Channai-600 002. DECISION
The appellant had sought certain information, which was largely furnished to him.
The CPIO however denied the information relating to the details of loan accounts of another person and other documents submitted by him. The CPIO contented that the information sought is related to personal information, which is exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act. The appellate authority upheld the decision of the CPIO.
There is no denial of information to the appellant. The Banks are expected to maintain confidentiality of the accounts of its customers and that the documents submitted by its customers do not fall under public domain. Hence, exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Prof M. M. Ansari)
Download the decision from Download Segment