Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2010/001188
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 24 June 2011
Date of decision : 24 June 2011
Name of the Appellant : Shri Hari Kishan Malik
104B, Mohalla Jagiwanpura,
Gali Ram Kumar Advocate,
Fatehabad, HR.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Punjab National Bank,
Circle Office, Hissar, HR - 125 005.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Vinod Kumar was present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. We heard this case through video conferencing. The Appellant was
present in the Fatehabad studio of the NIC while the Respondent was present
in the Hissar studio. We heard their submissions.
3. The Appellant had sought a number of details regarding the interview
conducted on 12 November 1997 for promotion to the post of Special Assistant.
Nearly one month after the completion of the stipulated period, the CPIO
directed him to approach the CPIO at Rohtak instead for the said information
with the observation that it should be available with that office. Later, on his
appeal, the Appellate Authority observed that the relevant records had been
sent by the Rohtak office in a routine manner to the office in Hissar. Thus, at
the end of several months of effort and approaching both the CPIO and the
Appellate Authority of the bank, the Appellant did not get any information.
CIC/SM/A/2010/001188
4. During the hearing, the Respondent completely failed to explain
satisfactorily why the RTI application had not been transferred to the
appropriate CPIO within five days of receiving it and why was he advised nearly
a month after the stipulated period to approach some other CPIO. He also
failed to explain which exact office of the bank would have in its possession the
desired information. This shows complete indifference and casualness on the
part of the officers of the bank dealing with RTI requests. In this case, the
Appellant was compelled to move from place to place and authority to authority
in search of some information which was his legitimate right to get. In the
process, the Appellant submitted, he suffered a lot of harassment and financial
loss. We tend to agree with him. Indeed, from the manner in which this case
has been dealt with by the officers of the bank, it is quite understandable that
the Appellant has suffered so much of harassment and, obviously, some
financial loss. He deserves to be compensated for this harassment and
financial loss to the tune of Rs. 20,000.
5. In exercise of the powers vested in the CIC in Section 19(8) (b) of the
Right to Information (RTI) Act, we direct the bank to compensate the Appellant
by an amount of Rs. 20,000 for the harassment and financial loss suffered by
him. We further direct that the CPIO shall ensure that this amount of
compensation is remitted to the Appellant within 20 working days from the
receipt of this order by way of a demand draft and compliance reported to the
CIC.
6. We also direct that CPIO shall provide the desired information, if
available, within 10 working days from the receipt of this order. In case, all or
some of the information is not available, the CPIO shall clearly say so in his
communication to the Appellant.
CIC/SM/A/2010/001188
7. Although it was noted that the initial response of the CPIO was delayed
by nearly a month, no penalty can be imposed since the officer concerned,
reportedly, has already retired from the service of the bank.
8. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
9. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this
Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Deputy Registrar
CIC/SM/A/2010/001188