Central Information Commission
File No.CIC/PB/A/2007/00157-SM
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated: 4 February 2010
Name of the Appellant : Shri R.K. Kukreja
C/o. Punjab & Sind Bank,
Zonal Office No. III,
91, Bhandari House,
Nehru Place, New Delhi - 110 019.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Punjab & Sind Bank,
H.O. Risk Management Department,
7th Floor, 21 Bank House,
Rajendra Place, New Delhi - 110 125.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:-
(i) Shri S.H.S. Lamba, General Manager/CPIO,
(ii) Shri D.B. Singh, Manager,
(iii) Shri Lekhraj, Manager,
(iv) Shri J. Buther, Advocate
2. We had heard this case last on 23 December 2009 and had adjourned it with
certain directions. The case was taken up for hearing today in the presence of the
Appellant and the CPIO and the others from the Bank. We heard the detailed
submissions made by both the parties. The respondents submitted that they had
complied with all the directions given by the CIC from time to time in this matter,
namely, they have already allowed the Appellant to inspect the relevant files
concerning the DPC and that they have also provided him with a copy of the
affidavit to the effect that the so-called chargesheet dated 4.1.1996 did not exist
and all mention about it was a mistake. They further submitted that in spite of
repeated reference from time to time to this so-called chargesheet in the records
of the Bank or in their statements before the courts, such a document did not exist
and that they had taken steps to rectify their mistake by filing appropriate
affidavits and statements before the High Court.
3. On the other hand, the Appellant insisted that the CPIO had not complied
with the directions of this Commission and that, in spite of the affidavits filed by
the Bank denying the existence of the so-called chargesheet dated 4.1.1996, it was
always there as repeatedly claimed by various authorities in the Bank from time to
time. He also submitted that in spite of the clear direction of the CIC to the CPIO
CIC/PB/A/2007/00157-SM
to provide a copy of the said affidavit within 15 working days from the passing of
her order, the CPIO took several months to provide him with a copy of that
affidavit and for this deliberate lapse, he prayed, the CPIO should be penalised.
4. We carefully considered all the submissions made by both the parties. This
matter has been heard both by our predecessor and by us on a number of
occasions, first in dealing with the appeal filed by the Appellant and, later, with
his review petitions. The one single document which the Appellant has been
consistently demanding is the so-called chargesheet referred to above. Equally
consistently, the Bank has been denying the existence of any such document in
their records. Both in their affidavits before this Commission and before the High
Court, they have categorically stated so and have admitted that the reference to
such a document in the past was by mistake. If such a document does not exist in
the records, obviously, we cannot compel the CPIO to produce a copy of it.
However, the fact that successive and various authorities within the Bank had
continued to make reference to the existence of such a charge sheet with
whatever effect on the career promotion of the Appellant shows that the whole
matter had been dealt with very casually and without much application of mind by
some officials. In our opinion, the Bank should institute an enquiry into this entire
matter and fix responsibility on individual officers whose mistake, if any, resulted
in this situation.
5. As far as the present case is concerned, there is nothing much to be done as
the CPIO, on affidavit, has denied the existence of any such document. And, as far
as the delay on the part of the CPIO in providing a copy of the affidavit to the
Appellant is concerned, we would like to end the matter by warning him to be
more serious and responsible in future in carrying out the directions of the CIC.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(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.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar
CIC/PB/A/2007/00157-SM