Central Information Commission
Appeal No. CIC/PB/A/2008/00844, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009-SM dated
20.05.2008, 26.05.2008
Right to Information Act-2005 - Under Section (19)
Dated 03.12.2008
Appellant: R K Jain
Respondent: Punjab National Bank
Appellant present in person.
On behalf of the Respondents, the following are present:
(i) Sh. N. Jayraman, DGM, CPIO
(ii) Sh. A. K. Gulati, Chief Manager
(iii) Sh. Jagdish Chander, Sr. Manager
(iv) Sh. V. K. Bhatnagar, Sr. Manager
In all, there are five appeals filed by the same Appellant which are clubbed
together for hearing today because the subject matter of all the appeals is in
regard to information sought from the same Public Authority, namely, Punjab
National bank. The brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Appellant had approached the CPIO in the Bank with a number of
requests for information on a variety of issues. He wanted to know the status of a
number of complaints/applications/representations filed by him in the Bank. In
all these cases, the CPIO simply informed him that the CMD had not passed any
order on his applications but did not say anything about the finding/noting by
other senior officers. However, the Appellant was not satisfied with the
information provided and preferred appeal in all the cases before the Appellate
Authority in the Bank. The Appellate Authority decided these appeals and found
the response of the CPIO right. The Appellant has preferred all these appeals
against the orders of the Appellate Authority by way of second appeal.
3. During the hearing, all the appeals preferred by the Appellant were
discussed in detail. The information he had sought from the CPIO in all the five
cases was read out in detail as also the information provided to him. In appeal
number 844, the Appellant wanted to know about the status of enquiry against
another officer and details about the punishment imposed on that officer, if any.
The CPIO refused the information on the ground that this was personal
information about a third party and had no relationship with any public activity
or interest and, thus, was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the
Right to Information Act. The Appellate Authority was in full agreement with the
CPIO.
4. In appeal number 1006, the Appellant wanted to know about the details of
findings and noting of the CMD, top senior officers and the Committee of General
Managers on his applications dated 17 September 2007, 30 September 2007, 10
October 2007, and 8 October 2007. The CPIO informed him that no orders had
been passed by the CMD on his letters without any mention about whether the
other senior officers or the Committee of General Managers had recorded any
noting on his applications. In this case, the Appellate Authority expressed his
agreement with the CPIO.
5. In appeal number 1007, he had similarly wanted to know the details of
finding of the CMD, top senior officers and Committee of General Managers on
his applications dated in October 2007 and 19 October 2007 regarding the
change of disciplinary authority. In reply, the CPIO informed him that the CMD
had not passed any order on his applications. Once again, the CPIO did not
mention anything about the noting, if any, of any other senior officers or the
Committee of General Managers on his applications. In this case also, the
Appellate Authority was in agreement with the CPIO.
6. In appeal number 1008, the Appellant wanted to know about the findings
and noting of the CMD, senior officers, Committee of General Managers and the
CVO of the bank on his application regarding the financial irregularity allegedly
committed by one Chief Manager of the Bank. The CPIO denied some of the
information on the ground that it was held by the Bank in a fiduciary relationship
and, therefore, could not be revealed under Section 8(1) (e) of the Right to
Information Act-2005. In this case, the Appellant authority agreed with the CPIO
and disposed of his appeal without any direction.
7. In appeal number 1009, the Appellant wanted to know the action taken
such as the details of findings and noting of the CMD, senior officers, Committee
of General Managers and CVO on his application for revocation of his prolonged
suspension. The CPIO, in his reply, had informed him that the Bank had received
an unsigned representation dated 26th September 2007 and no orders had been
passed by the CMD on the said later. The Appellant Authority also felt the
response given by the CPIO was correct. Since the CPIO had informed that the
CMD had passed no order on his application dated 26th September 2007,
obviously, there is no question of providing any detail about the finding of the
CMD. However, the CPIO did not mention anything about the noting by other
senior officers or any Committee of the General Managers or the CVO on his
application.
8. In all these cases, it is noted that the Appellant had sought information in
regard to the action taken at various levels in the Bank on his applications and
representations as also complaints about a variety of issues. In all the cases, it is
noticed that the CPIO had merely stated that the CMD had not passed any order
on those applications, representations, and complaints. No mention was made
about the other information sought by the Appellant, namely, the noting or
finding by the other senior officers, Committee of General Managers and the
CVO. We feel that the CPIO should have given a clear reply on whether any of the
senior officers or the Committee of General Managers and the CVO, if supposed
to make any noting on the representations, applications and complaints filed by
the Appellant, had indeed made any such noting. In case, they had made any such
noting, the CPIO should have provided copies of those. Now, we direct the
Appellate Authority and the CPIO concerned categorically to reply to the
Appellant in all the five cases if other than the CMD, any other senior officer,
Committee of General Managers or the CVO had made any noting on the
applications, representations and complaints mentioned by the applicant in his
various applications. Copies of such notings, if any, should also be provided
within 15 working days from the receipt of this order. The compliance of our
order should be reported to the Commission soon thereafter.
9. The appeal is, thus, disposed off. Copies of this order be given free of cost
to the parties.
Sd/-
(Satyananda Mishra)
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.
Sd/-
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar