WHETHER INFORMATION TO BE REQUESTED FROM PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF (a) CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION OR (b) INDIAN BANK

Posted on November 29, 2011. Comments(2)     Status: Resolved Non-Anonymous RTI's

PLEASE GUIDE ME TO WHOM I HAVE TO FILE THE APPLICATION UNDER RTI ACT 2005,  TO ASCERTAIN THE PRESENT STATUS OF MY COMPLAINT, IN THE FOLLOWING CASE :-

WHETHER INFORMATION TO BE REQUESTED FROM PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF (a) CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION OR (b) INDIAN BANK

CASE DETAILS

In response to the COMPLAINANT OF A, Chief Manager of Vigilance Department of Indian Bank has replied, interalia, that:-

“…… (Indian Bank Football Team Common Fund Account with Indian Bank’s Harbour Branch) …… being operated as per mandate given from time to time …..”

In response to the COMPLAINT OF B, Assistant General Manager of Vigilance Department of Indian Bank has replied that:-

“…… Disciplinary Action was taken and completed against the official responsible for the lapses observed in the conduct of SB A/c 432331533 in the name of “Indian Bank Football Team Common Fund” with (Indian Bank’s) Harbour Branch.

On perusal of the FIRST LETTER, it can be inferred that Chief Manager of Vigilance Department of Indian Bank has come to the conclusion that :-

“… Indian Bank Football Team Common Fund Account with Indian Bank’s Harbour Branch is being operated as per mandate given from time to time.”

On the contrary, scrutiny of the SECOND LETTER of Assistant General Manager of Vigilance Department of Indian Bank confirms that :-

 ”There were lapses in the conduct of SB A/c 432331533 in the name of ‘Indian Bank Football Team Common Fund’ with Indian Bank’s Harbour Branch for which Disciplinary Action was taken against the official responsible.”

Thus, from the above, I have observed that the contents of the said letters of Vigilance Department of Indian Bank on the same subject are contradictory in nature.

Further perusal of the records pertaining to subject account, I have also observed that :-
“On and after 29.08.2006, Suspected Financial Fraud amounting to Rs.11,31,949.93 have taken place in the said account, due to Illegal / Unauthorised operations committed by Mr. A, alongwith Mr. B and Mr.C, all staff members of Indian Bank; 
and
“Some officials of Indian Bank, having the knowledge of above, are suppressing the Illegal / Unauthorised operations taken place in the account.”
In view of the  above, I took up the matter with CENTRAL VIGILANCE for obtention of confirmation from the Vigilance Department of Indian Bank that said two letters have been emanated from them only, and arrange to send the confirmation for my further action.
CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION, vide letter dated 18.10.2011, replied me as below:
Your complaint has been duly examined in the Commission and having regard to the nature of the issues raised therein; the same has been forwarded to CVO, Indian Bank, for necessary action. As such, while no further report is required to be sent to the Commission, the authorities concerned are required to look into the matter and take such action as deemed fit.
****************************************************************************

2 Responses to WHETHER INFORMATION TO BE REQUESTED FROM PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF (a) CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION OR (b) INDIAN BANK

  1. nightwatch says:
    November 30, 2011 at 8:44 PM

    1. Please go to the CVC website download the new CVC manual and read it.
    2. In normal cases when CVC forwards a complaint to the CVO it expects a reply from him in 3 months time. In this case since they are not asking for a report means that they do not see a major irregularity.
    3. However an irregularity appears to have occured , that is why they have referred it to the CVO, otherwise they would have rejected the complaint at their end.
    4. After 3 months time you can file a RTI application with the CVO Indian Bank to know the final disposal of the complaint.
    5. Also note in most cases CVO is the final word on the matter. I am not clear from your application if Chief Manager Vig Deptt is an internal appointee or the CVO who is placed by the DoPT.

  2. eearasu says:
    December 16, 2011 at 10:37 PM

    WITH REGARD TO RESPONSE DATED 30.11.2011, IN RESPECT OF POINT No.05, I SUBMIT AS UNDER:-

    (a) THE CHIEF MANAGER OF VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT IS AN INTERNAL APPOINTEE, i.e., EMPLOYEE OF INDIAN BANK; &

    (B) THE POST OF CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER IS A GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENT AND HIS POSTING IS NOT WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE BANK’S POWER’S OF POSTING.

Leave a Reply