The world's largest and most effective online campaigning community for change
Start a petition

vIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS BY BANK OF INDIA's OFFICIALS ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS.

This petition is awaiting approval by the Avaaz Community
vIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS BY BANK OF INDIA's OFFICIALS ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS.
  
  

 

Why this is important to me

The Chairman and the Managing Director
Bank Of India
Respected Sir,
REF: RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005
Please refer The Gazette of India Part 2 section 1 New Delhi Tuesday June 21,2005.
Reads as follows Refer Chapter II 4 b reads as
quote" publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this act,-
1)the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties;
2)the powers and duties of its officers and employees;
3)procedure followed in decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability;
4)the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions;
5)the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records held by it or under its control or used by its
employees for discharging its functions.
Please provide me certified copies of the same. THE of cost the same be recovered from my savings bank
account, no. 050711100030323.Hard copy of the advice be send by courier. The cost of COURIER be recovered by
debiting to my account. Please issue me the certificate that upto date information record is incorporated.
and there is no left over. PLEASE PROVIDE ME THE RECORD/DATE WHERIN THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WAS
IDENTIFIED AND APPOINTED.THIS INFORMATION TO INCLUDE THE NAME DESIGNATION AT THE TIME OF
APPOINTMENT. REFER ATTACHED FILE ADDRESSED TO Mr. S. D. Dasgupta. AGM and Discip. Authority. and
my letters addressed to you on 12-01-2013 and 4-02-2013. I have submitted that they have violated the RTI act.
MAY I YOUR DECISION ON THE SAME.SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDANCES.
THIS HAS ALSO REFERENCE TO FOLLOWING PENALTY ORDERS.
A) PENALTY ORDER -PZO/DA/AGM/1029:407 DATED 18-03-2006.SIGNED BY AGM AND DISCIP.AUTHORITY.
MR.A.RAVENDRAN. AND ALSO REFER CIC ORDER - CIC/PB/A/2008/00816 DATED 13-12-2005.UNDER SECTION
(19)-SM DATED 13-12-2005.order is dated.9 June 2009.[REFER PARA 5 OF THE ORDER QUOTE"THE
RESPONDANT(please provide his name designation and EMPID pleaded against his claim and said that at
every stage the authority had responded to the appellant(how many times name of the appellate
authority was provided date wise proof to be provided.)and had never acted with
any malafide intentions(refer disciplinary authority letters pzo/opr/vmk/2114 dated
17-01-2006 and pzo/ir/1029/261 dated 9-11-2005.also reads as-your application is not
conformity with the provisions of act(-what are they?)-your request for the documents
which you had sought had been examined(provide proofs) by the inquiring authority
and the same had been rejected. FURTHER MORE THE PROVISIONS OF FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION ACT 2002 CANNOT BE INVOKED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFENDING
DEPARTMENTAL INQUIRY-WHAT WERE THE INTENDENTIOS FOR SHIELDING THESE
FACTS FROM CIC-VERSION OF THE RESPONDANT TO BE GIVEN)THIS WAS NOT BROUGHT
TO THE NOTICE OF THE CIC.
B)PENALTY ORDER-SZO/IR/2010#:70 DATED 25 MAY 2010. AND ALSO CIC ORDER CIC/SM/A/2009/001642 DATED
31-03-2009. RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT-2005-UNDER SECTION(19) ORDER IS DATED 10 AUGUST. 2010.
THIS IS ONE MORE PROOF OF VIOLATION OF RTI ACT.THIS ORDER IS COMPAREABLE WITH THE DECISION GIVEN
BY THE APPELL AUTHORITY THEIR LETTER NO HO/ED/292 DATED 07-09-2007.AND ALSO REFER MY LETTER
DATED 03/11/2005 ADDRESSED SHREE G.S,NAIK AGM PUNE ZONE AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT /DECISION ARE AWAITED EVEN TODAY.MAY I HAVE THE SAME EVEN NOW.
I MAY ADD THAT THIS ASPECT MR.RAVANDREEN THE SECOND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY NEVER COVERED IN HIS
COMMUNICATION TO ME.EVEN TODAY I AM AWAITING FOR THE PARAMETERS USED BY MR. RAVENDREEN.MAY I
HAVE THE SAME EVEN NOW.C)PENALTY ORDER NO.PZO/AGM/DA/1116/096 DATED 24-05-2010.SIGNED BY
MR.S.D.GUPTA.AGM AND DISC.AUTHORITY.[EVEN NOW/ i. e. EVEN as on today IS MR.S.D.DASGUPTA IS IN
POSITION TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO ALL RECORDS/ including closure report.
[ ref-INFORMATION/DECISION APPEARING IN MY APPLICATION DATED 20-05-2010.ADDRESSED TO HIM.]
1)REFER THE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSION OFFICE REF.NO/SM/A/2010/00607.777 &915 (TWO CASES ]
HEARING NOTICE DATED 8TH DECEMBER 2010.THERE IS A MENTION OF MY APPLICATION DATED 19-01-2010
2)REFER CIC FILE NO CIC/SM/A/2010/00607,777 &915 ORDER DATED 6 DECEMBER 2010.
3)REFER PZO/LGL/VDR/16 DATED 16-05-2011.ADDRESSED TO SHRI VIJAY BHALLA DY.REGISTRAR CIC.
DY.Z.M. AND CPIO HAVE SKIPPED TO MENTION MY APPLICATION DATED 19-01-
2010 IS PRESENT IN THEIR NOTICE.YOU HAVE ALSO NOT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE
OF THE CIC THAT THEIR ORDER CONTAINS REF. OF FILE NO 915. HOWEVER THE
ORDER IS SILENT ABOUT KOTTURS APPLICATION DATED.19-01-2010. MAY I KNOW
WHY ENTIRE PICTURE/FACTS WERE NOT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF CIC.WITHOUT
GIVING ENTIRE PICTURE/FACTS YOU HAVE GIVEN WRONG SIGNALS TO CIC.
IS MR.CPIO IN A POSITION TO GIVE ACCESS TO ALL THE RECORDS AS APPEARING
IN MY APPLICATION EVEN NOW.
[my claim for compensation is kept reserve.]
3A)REFER CIC ORDER WITH REFERENCE TO DECISION NO.CIC/SM/A/2010/0015/SG/14518.AND APPEAL
NO.CIC/SM/A/2010/001548/SG.
RESPONDANT - ABSENT-
THE APPELLANT STATES THAT HE HAS BEEN GIVEN INFORMATION BUT HE BELIEVES THAT THE INFORMATION
IS ERRANEOUS.HE WOULD LIKE TO INSPECT ALL HIS LEAVE RECORS AND OTHER REGISTERS IN WHICH
LEAVES ARE RECORDED.
THE PIO IS DIRECTED TO FACILIATE AN INSPECTION OF THE RELEVANT RECORD BY THE APPELLANT AT THE
DATE AND TIMES DICED WITH THEM.THE RECORDS WILL BE INSPECTED AT THE PLACE WHERE THEY
EXIT. DECISION-THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED.THE PIO IS DIRECTED TO FACILIATE AN INSPECTION OF THE
RELEVANT RECORD BY THE APPELLANT.THE PIO WILL GIVE ATTESTED PHOTOCOPIES OF RECORDS
WHICH THE APPELLANT WANTS FREE OF COST UPTO 200 PAGES.[THIS IS COMPRABLE WITH THE
COMMUNICATION MR. S.P.SINGH HAD WITH CIC AS MENTIONED ABOVE. These are the true lies. ]
AS ARRANGED MUTUALLY DICED I HAVE CONTACTED TO MR.S.P.SINGH ON TWO OCCASSIONS.THE RESULT
NO ARRANGEMENT WAS MADE FOR INSPECTION OF RECORD.ON THIRD OCCASSION ARRANGEMENT
MADE BY MR.S.P.SIGH DID NOT COVER INSPECTION OF ALL THE RECORDS.I INSISTED FOR INSPECTION
OF ALL RECORDS AT ONE GO.MR.S.P.SINGH.COULD NOT ARRANGE FOR THE SAME.I REFUSED THE INSPECTION
OF DOCUMENTS IN FRACTIONS.
SUBSQUENTLY FOLLOW UP WAS MADE WITH THE GENERAL MANGER HO.CSD./ ZO.PUNE.WITH ADDED
REQUEST 1)CERTIFICATE FROM THE BRANCHES AS ON 1ST DAY OF EVERY YEAR .THIS WAS/IS IN TUNE
WITH THE GUIDELINES PREVAILING IN BOI.AND ALSO PARTICULARS OF ACCOUNTABILITY MR.S.P.SINGH-
EXAMINED AND CONCLUDED.THE EXECUTION OF CIC ORDER IS STILL AWAITED.

4)REFER MY APPLICATION DATED 22 FEB 2010 UNDER RTI ADDRESSED TO MR.R.S.MALAVADE DY.ZM.PUNE
DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY & CPIO.PLEASE LET ME KNOW AS TO WHEN I WILL BE IN A POSITION TO GET
ALL THE INFORMATION/RECORD.
REFER SAME APPLICATION DATED 22 FEB 2010 UNDER RTI REF. CHART ONE-
PARTICULARS OF CIC DECISION SR NO.4. ONE MORE PROOF TO MISLEAD CIC.
one of- BANK OF INDIAS DECISION-SINCE YOU HAVE NOT FILED AS REQUIRED UNDER RTI ACT YOUR APPEAL
IS DISMISSED.[THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO DENY THE JUSTICE TO KOTTUR-INTENTIONAL VIOLATION OF RTI.]
CIC DECISION-CIC/MAC/2006/36 DATED -01-06-2006-"CPIO DID NOT INFORM THE APPELLANT THE DETAILS
OF AA.THIS IS AN ACCEPTABLE JUSTIFICATION TO APPROACH THIS COMMISSION DIRECTLY.
THIS IS ONE MORE PROOF/S TO MISLEAD EVEN TO CIC.THANKS TO CIC FOR FOILING
THIS ATTEMPT. [also find enclosed my letter addressed to the CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
THE LETTER IS DATED 05-06-2010.ACOPY OF THE SAME WAS ENDORSED TO THE THEN CHAIRMAN AND
MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.ALOK MISHRA. MAY I HAVE ACCESS TO THE RECORD HOW OUR BELOVED
CHAIRMAN AND M.D. AND ALSO CHAIRMAN OF INDIAN BANKS ASSOCIATION HAS DEALT WITH. ]

[FOR THIS ATTEMPT CLAIM FOR COMEPENSECTION IS KEPT RESERVE.]
CC:
MR.SATYANAND MISHRA
THE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER. NEW DELHI.
IF FOUND ACCEPTABLE AND SUITABLE YOU MAY PUT ENTIRE OR/PART OF THIS TEXT ON YOUR WEB-SITE.
YOUR feed back IN THIS REGARD IS WELCOME.
CC
THE COMMISSIONER
MAHARASHTRA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION.
SUBMITTED FOR INFORMATION AND FOR FURTHER ACTION PLEASE.
SECTION 2.
The Chairman and Managing Director Bank of India. 21-02-2013
Respected Sir,
Submitted for your ready reference The Text of R.T. Act ,reads as quote" CHAPTER 2 PAGE NO 8,J2 READS AS
"PROVIDED THAT THE INFORMATION WHICH CANNOT BE DENIED TO THE PARLIAMENT OR A STATE LEGISLATURE
SHALL NOT BE DENIED TO ANY PERSON"
With this background allow me to submit as under,
a)Refer letter no PZO/OPR/VMK/2114 dated 17-01-2006 since your application is not conformity with the
provisions of act(what are they-this claim is misleading) pertaining to the REQUEST for obtaining information
we are NOT in a position to furnish the information/document sought by you.[THIS IS ONE MORE PROOF OF VAGUE
APPROACH/MISLEADING APPROACH/NOW PROVED TO BE VIOLATION OF RTI ACT]
B)WE ARE RETURNING YOUR PAY ORDER NO 9651 DATED 13-12-2005 FOR RS.10/-IN THIS REGARD.
THIS IS A PROOF OF REFUSING INFORMATION UNDER RTI-HOWEVER- WHAT ARE THE CLAUSES OF RTI ACT/
SERVICE REGULATION OF BOI ARE APPLIED BE REVEALED.ATTESTED COPIES TO BE GIVEN.[FEED
BACK FROM THE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER IS REQUESTED]
b)Refer letter no, PZO/IR/1029/261 dated. Reading-"In the context to above you are advised that the
departmental inquiry proceedings against you have already been completed[THIS IS ONE MORE PROOF
OF BIASED APPROACH/INTENTIONAL BIASED APPROACH OF DISCIPLINIARY AUTHORITY-BEFORE WRITING
THIS IRRESPONSIBLE LETTER THE DISCIPLINIARY TO GIVE PROOF OF HOW MANY MY LETTERS ARE PERSUED BY
HIM/HOW MANY LETTERS NOT PERSUED BY HIM.THIS IS INCLUSIVE OF MY LETTERS ADDRESSED TO MR.J,N.
PATIL.,MR.PATWARDHAN.MR.G.S.NAIK.,MR.S.K.SRIVASTAVA.MR.P.C.SHETTY. THE CHAIRMAN AND
MANAGING DIRECTOR BOI WHY THEY HAVE NOT BEEN REPLIED/WHAT WAS/IS THERE DECISI0N.THIS MATTER
IS SKIPPED IN THIS INCOMPLETE LETTER.MR.RAVANDREEN TO GIVE HIS VERSION EVEN NOW. IF BOI IS NOT IN A
POSITION TO GIVE THE SAME THE REASONS FOR SUCH REJECTION TO BE GIVEN-THEY MUST GIVE THEIR
JUSTIFICATION FOR FAIRNESS OF THIS INQUIRY] AND copy of findings of the inquiry[this is one more proof of giving
partial findings of the inquiry-what are the parameters used for giving only partial report-CAN I HAVE FULL
REPORT EVEN NOW I.E.EVEN AFTER LAPSE OF 7 YEARS 3 MONTHS.] Instead of submitting the representation you
have desired copies(sir please provide justification for your biased approach supported by documentary
evidences.)Instead of submitting the representation[sir when the inquiry is based on incomplete information I
have represented even to our Chairman you are not taking into consideration my grievances-you are not covering
the same in your this letter this is one more proof of your BIAS approach to me]you have desired copies of
document under Freedom of Information Act. PLEASE NOTE THAT YOUR REQUEST FOR THE DOCUMENTS WHICH
YOU HAD SOUGHT FOR,HAD BEEN EXAMINED BY THE INQUIRING AUTHORITY[PLEASE PROVIDE access
to THIS EXAMINATION EVEN NOW]AND THE SAME HAD BEEN FOUND REJECTED.[PARAMETERS USED
FOR THE SAME BE PROVIDED]FURTHER MORE THE PROVISIONS OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2002
[WHAT IS THE SPECIFICE PROVISION-THIS IS ONE MORE PROOF OF VAGUE/BIASED APPROACH TOWARDS
ME]CANNOT BE INVOKED[YOUR DECISION COMPELLS ME TO CONCLUDE THAT YOU ARE ABOVE LAW-YOUR
COUNTER CLAIM IS WELCOMED]CANNOT BE INVOKED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFENDING A DEPARTMENTAL
INQUIRY.SIR ALL THESE CLAIMS ARE COMPRABLE WITH THE C.I.C. DECISION.YOUR
COUNTER CLAIM from disciplinary authority INCLUDING THAT OF MR.G.S.NAIK.
IS WELCOME AND AWAITED. I MAY ADD THAT MR.G.S.NAIK WAS A TAINTED /
BIASED DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY.THIS OPPORTUNITY WAS DENIED TO ME.BY MR.
RAVANDREEN.HON DICIPLINARY AUTHORITY SKIPPED TO MENTIONED AS TO WHAT
ARE THE FINDINGS OF INVESTIGATION/DISCIPLINARY OF MISSINGS 3 INSPECTIONS
REPORTS.THIS IS ONE MORE PROOF OF HIS INTENTIONAL BIASED APPROACH TOWARDS
KOTTUR.MAY I HAVE THESE PAPRES EVEN NOW.
[SIR- EVEN AT THE COST OF REPETATION I MUST KNOW EVEN NOW THE JUSTIFICATION FOR NOT PROVIDING
RECORD/ INFORMATION APPEARING IN MY APPLICATION ADDRESSED TO THE CHIEF INFORMATION
COMMISSIONER DATED 05-06-2010.
HON CHAIRMAN PLEASE HELP.
SIR AGAIN REFER CIC ORDER DATED 9 JUNE-2009 READS AS-QUOTE" we feel that the copies of these documents
should be provided to the Appellant after removing/serving all these references to third party customers. Thus we
direct the CPIO to provide to the appellant within 10 working days from receipt of this order copies of all these
documents listed from a) to f) on page 2 of his application dated 13 December 2005.after serving all references to
the account details of third party customers.[sir may I request you/appeal you to prove that there was no violation
of RTI ACT- NO VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHT-i.e. from commencement of inquiry till punishment awarded. ]
Your proofs are welcome even now.
MY OBSERVATIONS-
A)Refer RTI Act 2005 chapter 1(2)The provisions of subsection(1)of section4.subsection (1)&(2) of sub section
5.Section 12.13.15.16.24.27 &28 shall come into force at once and the remaining provisions of this act shall
come into force on the one hundred and the twentieth day of its in actment. PLEASE PROVIDE ME RECORD
REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION/ENFORCEMENT OF THIS ACT.
B)Two letters from Hon. Ravandreen are comparable with the CIC order. He failed/refused to Provide the
documents as appearing in the cic. order, May I have the feed - back you have given to CIC/any competent
authority. MAY I HAVE ACCESS TO THIS RECORD EVEN NOW?
If no reporting is made certificate to such effect be provided.
c)Refer my letter addressed to Mr. S. D. Gupta and appearing in my letter addressed to the Chief Information
Commissioner dated 05-06-2010.Let me have your final decision, inclusive of objections.
This will enable me if required to approach APPROACH CVC.
D)Refer my application dated 6 june 2005-with reference to suspension order no.PZO/GSN/CA/1029:44 dated
24 May 2005.Please permit access to all record wherever the same is maintained. This should be inclusive of
closure report. Sr. Manager Hon. Mr. Kamble was also suspended in these same accounts. Permission to this
record to be granted. PROVIDING ACCESS TO THESE RECORDS IN FRACTIONS MUST BE AVOIDED.
E)Refer investigation report- Ref No.PZO/CR/P/039 dated 17 May 2004.The competent Authority the Zonal
Manager Hon. Mr. J. N. Patil directed investigating officer to undertake investigation. THE ENCLOSURES WERE
EXCLUSIVE OF THE IOM'S 1)PZO/GSN/78 dated 14-11-2003 and branch reply KDK/VSK/155 dated 12=12=2003
2)PZO/CR/P/13 of 2nd April 2004 and branch reply-kdk/vsk/16 dated 17-05-2004.Parameters used for exclusion
of these letters to be provided.[MY APPREHENSION - THIS IS ONE OF THE PROOF OF CONDUCTING INVESTIGATION
IN A BIASED MANNER.THIS IS ALSO COMPARABLE TO THE LETTER NO HO/ED/292 DATED 07-09-2007
SIGHED BY MR.K.R.KAMAT. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND A.A.UNDER RTI QUOTE"YOU MAY NOTE THAT THE
LETTERS/ MEMOES ON THE BRANCH VISIT OF AGM IS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION OF BANK WHICH CANNOT BE
PROVIDED(this is comparable with the cic order dated 15-10-2007-THIS IS A BOGUS CLAIM NOW PROVED)
AND OTHER THAN WHAT IS PROVIDED VIDE OUR SAID LETTERS NOTHING IS TO BE ADDED FURTHER IN THE
MATTER ]I was provided with only part of the report no PZO/INV:INV:13 dated 30-08-2004.This is one
more proof that the inquiry conducted concluded against me is based on incomplete report.[THIS IS COMPRABLE
WITH THE PRACTICE PREVAILING IN OUR JUDICIARY SYSTEM]Can I have the entire report even now the same to
include 1)missing inspection reports they are -3. 2)investigation findings against Mr.V. S. Kamble Sr. Manager and
Mr.A.M.Doshi.3)Mr.Kambles -4 postings at Khadki Branch ,including the name of the executive handling portfolio
of personnel department.4)Particulars of pending investigations against Mr. Kamble. 5)Address of Mr.Kamble and
Mr.Gangavane. their nearness /relations,6)Particulars Of Mr.Vaidya. account introduced by Mr. Kamble.
(subsquently Mr.Vaidya.was arrested by police-these particulars were published in news papers.)7)Particulars of
credentials of Mr Vaidya verified by the investigating officer.8)Correspondence related to FIR filed in this case.
Reply from Police department.9)Particulars of action taken against the Borrowers/employees of Pune Municipal
Corporation for submitting FAKE salary certificate. The Response from PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.
CONCLUSIVE ACTION TAKEN ON PMC FEEDBACK.ALL PARTICULARS MUST BE REVEALED.
This investigating officer before joining Bank of India was reported to be associated WITH THE CENTRAL BUREAU
OF INVESTIGATION.A PREMIER INVESTIGATION AGENCY OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.-IF I AM WRONG I MUST BE
CORRECTED.
SIR PLEASE HELP.
Yours faithfully.
sd-
A.K.Kottur.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




.
Posted October 27, 2013
Report this as inappropriate
Click To Copy:

Share via email!

Thanks for sharing!

This petition depends on people like you sharing it -- thanks for passing it on.