Moneylife: Pune: Wednesday, 24 July 2024.
In an order so rare, of a
central information commissioner (CIC), the ‘arrogant, evasive and uncouth
behaviour’ of a bunch of officials from State Bank of India (SBI) at
Thiruvananthapuram in Kerala, who represented the second appeal hearing last
fortnight, stole the show, as it formed the larger part of the CIC’s
observations.
The RTI application sought information on the SBI credit card application status of the applicant OV Sreedath, who filed a second appeal after the information was rejected by the central public information officer (CPIO) and first appellate authority (FAA) of SBI.
However, the CIC Anandi Ramalingam had to first vent her anger at the behaviour of the bank officials during the course of the hearing. The credit card operation is outsourced to SBI’s subsidiary SBI Cards & Payment Services Ltd, but comes falls under the public authority (PA) which is the SBI.
Instead of procuring information from SBI Cards & Payment Services, the CPIO Pradeep Balachandran directed the RTI applicant Sreedath to directly approach this private entity. This showed the total ignorance of CPIO Balachandran as most private organisations do not come under the ambit of the RTI Act but information can be procured from the PA which appoints it. So, the CPIO should have forwarded the RTI requisition to the SBI Cards & Payment Services to access the information that is allowed under the RTI Act and given it to the applicant.
Mainly irked by the mockery and ignorance of the RTI Act of the CPIO Balachandran and his colleagues, CIC Ramalingam reprimanded the FAA of the SBI, sternly sounding him in the order, “to ensure that the deputed CPIO is not accompanied with surplus officials who have no assistance to offer or protocol to follow as the deputation of officials to attend the hearing at the NIC studio comes at the cost of the public exchequer.”
The CIC observed that she was “aghast” that the CPIO and his colleagues could not “enlighten the bench about SBI Cards & Payment Services. It seemed futile to have gathered multiple SBI officials at the NIC studio when none appeared competent enough to argue the case or least of all assist the CPIO in arguing the case.”
CIC Ramalingam observed that the SBI personnel, including the CPIO, resembled “a casual assembly of the officials to merely mark their presence before the bench.” Sending the copy of the order to the FFA, she asked him to seriously take note of this behaviour as any second hearing comes at the expense of public money.
CIC Ramalingam has ordered that the CPIO should provide the information sought by RTI applicant Sreedath who wanted details about his credit card status which is operated by SBI Cards & Payment Service.
Ms Ramalingam asked the CPIO to provide a fresh reply to the RTI applicant by accessing information from SBI Cards & Payment Services. In case the information was not available with it, then the “CPIO shall state the same categorically on a duly filed affidavit and send the same to the Commission with a copy of it duly endorsed to the Appellant,” within a month of the order.
In the concluding paragraph, the CIC records “severe admonition for the callous conduct of Balachandran, regional manager (RM) and CPIO and the officers accompanying him during the hearing, (none of whom bothered to have their attendance recorded either). Pradeep Balachandran, RM & CPIO is hereby warned against recurrence of similar lapses in the future by ensuring that he desists from tendering misleading/ incorrect, evasive statements before the bench and steers clear of feigning ignorance regarding the functioning of the very public authority he is representing before the Commission, that exercises penal powers against dereliction of the statutory duty cast upon the CPIO by virtue of the RTI Act.”
Following is the RTI application of OV Sreedath, appellant to the CPIO of the SBI, Madathara Branch:
The CPIO, on 19 October 2022, replied to the RTI applicant that “We advise that your credit card application is submitted to SBI Cards & Payment Services Ltd, which is a separate and distinct legal entity. The information sought by you is not held with this public authority. You may directly obtain the information from SBI Credit Cards & Payment Services Ltd.”
Even during the second hearing, CPIO Ramchandran insisted to the CIC that “There is absolutely no connection between SBI and SBI Credit Cards and Payment Services Ltd.”
Even when the bench prompted the CPIO that the chairman of SBI Credit Cards and Payment Services Ltd, would be one from the board of directors of SBI itself, the CPIO rebutted that the chairman of SBI is not the same as that of SBI Credit Cards and Payment Services. This is totally wrong because, SBI’s chairman Dinesh Khara is shown on the website of SBI Credit Cards and Payment Services as its non-executive chairman.
Through the course of the hearing, the bench noted that one of the officers from the team of officials accompanying the CPIO displayed sheer ignorance and total disregard for the decorum of the hearing proceedings before the bench as he perpetually remained busy with his mobile.
The RTI application sought information on the SBI credit card application status of the applicant OV Sreedath, who filed a second appeal after the information was rejected by the central public information officer (CPIO) and first appellate authority (FAA) of SBI.
However, the CIC Anandi Ramalingam had to first vent her anger at the behaviour of the bank officials during the course of the hearing. The credit card operation is outsourced to SBI’s subsidiary SBI Cards & Payment Services Ltd, but comes falls under the public authority (PA) which is the SBI.
Instead of procuring information from SBI Cards & Payment Services, the CPIO Pradeep Balachandran directed the RTI applicant Sreedath to directly approach this private entity. This showed the total ignorance of CPIO Balachandran as most private organisations do not come under the ambit of the RTI Act but information can be procured from the PA which appoints it. So, the CPIO should have forwarded the RTI requisition to the SBI Cards & Payment Services to access the information that is allowed under the RTI Act and given it to the applicant.
Mainly irked by the mockery and ignorance of the RTI Act of the CPIO Balachandran and his colleagues, CIC Ramalingam reprimanded the FAA of the SBI, sternly sounding him in the order, “to ensure that the deputed CPIO is not accompanied with surplus officials who have no assistance to offer or protocol to follow as the deputation of officials to attend the hearing at the NIC studio comes at the cost of the public exchequer.”
The CIC observed that she was “aghast” that the CPIO and his colleagues could not “enlighten the bench about SBI Cards & Payment Services. It seemed futile to have gathered multiple SBI officials at the NIC studio when none appeared competent enough to argue the case or least of all assist the CPIO in arguing the case.”
CIC Ramalingam observed that the SBI personnel, including the CPIO, resembled “a casual assembly of the officials to merely mark their presence before the bench.” Sending the copy of the order to the FFA, she asked him to seriously take note of this behaviour as any second hearing comes at the expense of public money.
CIC Ramalingam has ordered that the CPIO should provide the information sought by RTI applicant Sreedath who wanted details about his credit card status which is operated by SBI Cards & Payment Service.
Ms Ramalingam asked the CPIO to provide a fresh reply to the RTI applicant by accessing information from SBI Cards & Payment Services. In case the information was not available with it, then the “CPIO shall state the same categorically on a duly filed affidavit and send the same to the Commission with a copy of it duly endorsed to the Appellant,” within a month of the order.
In the concluding paragraph, the CIC records “severe admonition for the callous conduct of Balachandran, regional manager (RM) and CPIO and the officers accompanying him during the hearing, (none of whom bothered to have their attendance recorded either). Pradeep Balachandran, RM & CPIO is hereby warned against recurrence of similar lapses in the future by ensuring that he desists from tendering misleading/ incorrect, evasive statements before the bench and steers clear of feigning ignorance regarding the functioning of the very public authority he is representing before the Commission, that exercises penal powers against dereliction of the statutory duty cast upon the CPIO by virtue of the RTI Act.”
Following is the RTI application of OV Sreedath, appellant to the CPIO of the SBI, Madathara Branch:
- Provide the attested copy of the information or documents related with the application itself and annexure documents submitted by me along with the referred credit card request application having number: xxxxxxx
- Provide the attested copy of the information or documents related with the name and designation of the officer along with the official address who had received my the above referred credit card request application having number: xxxxxxx
- Provide the attested copy of the information or documents related with the name and designation of the officer's along with the official address who had handled the above referred credit card request application having number: xxxxxxx dated from 18/08/2022 to till date.
- Provide the attested copy of all the information or documents including file note kept in the file related with the above referred credit card request application having number: xxxxxxx
- Provide the attested copy of all the information or documents which is mandatory guidelines orders that is following by the SBI for rejecting or for declining an application or request for credit card.
- Provide the attested copy of all the information or documents which is mandatory guidelines orders that is following by the SBI for accepting an application or request for credit card.
- The attested copy of all the information or documents what does this “reason code 1: P15” means in related with the decline/ rejection of the above said application having number xxxxxx
- Provide the attested copy of all the information or documents that shows whether my cibil credit score issued by the Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited had been affected with the decline / rejection of the above said application having number xxxxxxx
- Provide copy of all the information or documents that shows the name and designation of the person who had been then in. charge of the Manager at the SBI branch, Madathara dated on 1/11/2021
- Provide the attested copy of all the information or documents that shows the name and designation of the person who had been the in charge of the Accounts officer at the SBI branch, Madathara dated on 01/11/2021.
- Provide the attested copy of all the information or documents that shows the name and designation of the Person who had been the in charge of the locker which had stored the ornaments or gold fledged as security for gold loan at the SBI branch, Madathara dated from 3rd November 2021 to the 4th day of April 2022.”
The CPIO, on 19 October 2022, replied to the RTI applicant that “We advise that your credit card application is submitted to SBI Cards & Payment Services Ltd, which is a separate and distinct legal entity. The information sought by you is not held with this public authority. You may directly obtain the information from SBI Credit Cards & Payment Services Ltd.”
Even during the second hearing, CPIO Ramchandran insisted to the CIC that “There is absolutely no connection between SBI and SBI Credit Cards and Payment Services Ltd.”
Even when the bench prompted the CPIO that the chairman of SBI Credit Cards and Payment Services Ltd, would be one from the board of directors of SBI itself, the CPIO rebutted that the chairman of SBI is not the same as that of SBI Credit Cards and Payment Services. This is totally wrong because, SBI’s chairman Dinesh Khara is shown on the website of SBI Credit Cards and Payment Services as its non-executive chairman.
Through the course of the hearing, the bench noted that one of the officers from the team of officials accompanying the CPIO displayed sheer ignorance and total disregard for the decorum of the hearing proceedings before the bench as he perpetually remained busy with his mobile.
.JPG)
.JPG)
