Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'rude'.
Found 3 results
Mumbai : In a landmark order, the Central Information Commission has ruled that CCTV footage of a public place is in the public domain and cannot be denied to a citizen. The case pertains to Mumbai-based RTI activist Chetan Kothari, who wanted the CCTV footage of the incident when a UCO bank cashier at Bhulabhai Desai Road misbehaved him. “The man ahead of me in the queue got Rs 1,000 in the denomination of Rs ten but when I asked for it, the cashier, Ganpat Dongera, was rude to me,’’ said Kothari. The incident happened on November 3, 2012. Unsatisfied with the action taken by the bank — merely instructing the employee concerned to be polite — Kothari asked for the service record of Dongera as well as the CCTV record of the incident. Read more: Citizens can access CCTV footage of public place - Free Press Journal
Hi RTI community members, This is my first post on this site. Almost everyone will agree that State Bank of India has one of the most rude and unprofessional staff. I had my own bad experience-: I visited the branch to apply for visa debit card. The clerk who process debit card request said he knew nothing about this card and asked me to go see the branch manager. The branch manager very rudely asked me to leave the cabin and bring the person on whose advice I came here. When called; the employee simply refused and said he never sent me to his cabin, on hearing this the branch manager started shouting like hell in front of two more people and asked me to leave. He didn't even listened to my arguments and assumed that I was lying. I suffered mental agony due this. I feel aggrieved and want to make that branch manager pay for his unprofessional behavior. I want to file complaint in consumer court and banking ombudsman. But before that I need to collect some evidence. I guess that RBI has made it mandatory to keep the video records for a certain period of time. I want to get copy of that day's video through RTI. So that same can be produced before the jury as an evidence.
Virendra Kumar Sharma posted a topic in Post your RTI Success hereRTI Act – India, A Success Story, A 33 month saga • 23.04.2009 - Request to SE HUDA, ‘Who is responsible for maintaining this road?’ No reply • 07.07.2009 - Appeal heard by Administrator HUDA, Directed SE to provide information within a week, No action • 03.10.2009 - Appeal to the State Information Commissioner • 05.11.2009 - Notice issued by SIC fixing date of hearing on 31.12.2009 • 17.11.2009 - SE HUDA sends 1st reply saying , “…matter looked fresh, …. Road falls under the jurisdiction of MCF & not HUDA • 31.12.2009 - 1st Appeal heard by State Information Commissioner, at Chandigarh. Directed Administrator HUDA to hold a meeting of all parties concerned with Dy Commissioner present and convey decision to me by 10.02.2010 • 10.02.2010 - Administrator HUDA sent minutes of meeting held on 09.02.2010 informing me that the responsibility is that of MCF. • 01.06.2010 - Letter to SE MCF asking, when repair will be taken up, No reply • 08.09.2010 - Appeal heard by Commissioner MCF, informed it is not MCF job • 18.10.2010 - Appeal to the SIC • 17.12.2010 - 2nd Appeal heard by State Information Commissioner, at Chandigarh, • 31.01.2011 - Request under RTI Act to SE HUDA • 01.03.2011 & 03.06.2011- Replies received, tentative provision of 15 lacs being made • 09.08.2011 - Appeal before Administrator HUDA – Waited 2.5 hrs, no hearing • 06.09.2011 - Appeal heard by the changed Administrator HUDA, “ Do not worry, now you do not have to make more rounds of these offices.” • 15.11.2011 - Reminder SE HUDA • 01.12.2011 - Final decision received. • 25.01.2012 - Pleasure to see work in progress. * * * * * LEGEND : HUDA - Haryana Urban Development Authority MCF - Municipal Corporation, Faridabad SIC - State Information Commissioner SE - Superintending Engineer V K Sharma / 29.01.2012