1. The issues under consideration arising out of second appeal dated 19.06.2017 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 29.03.2017 and first appeal dated 02.05.2017:
(i) names of the branch offices of State Bank of India in Ranchi where the post of sweeper-cum-messenger is vacant,
(ii) how many of the above branches have initiated recruitment of the sweeper-cum-messenger and in how many branches the recruitment process is yet to begin; daily labourers are hired by which authority, what is the scale-pay and duration in which the daily labourers are paid.
2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 29.03.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Ranchi, Jharkhand. The CPIO did not give any reply to the appellant. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed first appeal dated 02.05.2017. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) did not pass any order. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 19.06.2017 before this Commission which is under consideration.
3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 19.06.2017 inter alia on the grounds that no information was given by the CPIO as well as by the FAA.
4. The CPIO and the FAA did not give any reply to the appellant.
5.1 The appellant remained absent. The respondent Mr. Anthony Leyangi, Chief Manager/CPIO and Shri Pankaj Kumar Singh, Dy. Manager (Law), State Bank of India, Ranchi attended the hearing through video conferencing.
5.2. The respondent submitted that they sent a reply to the appellant on 27.12.2018. The respondent further submitted that they did not receive the first appeal as the appellant had not addressed his appeal to the concerned FAA whose office is at Patna.
5.3. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case including absence of the appellant, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, feels that the respondent has not provided information to the appellant. As the RTI application was not replied, the appellant was not communicated by the CPIO the name of the First Appellate Authority. Even if the first appeal was sent to the wrong authority, the same could have been acted upon after transferring the same to the FAA.
6. In view of this, the respondent is directed to provide the information to the appellant within 10 days from date of receipt of this order. The respondent is warned to be more cautious in dealing with the RTI applications in future. With the above directions and caution to the respondent, this appeal is disposed of.