Central Information Commission
Mr.Gurjeet Singh Malhotra vs Punjab National Bank on 7 July, 2010
Central Information Commission
File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/001282 & 1427
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Dated: 7 July 2010
Name of the Appellant : Shri Gurjeet Singh Malhotra PNB, Dingh Mandi, Distt - Sirsa, Haryana.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Hissar.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri R D Adraja, CPIO was present. CIC/SM/A/2009/001427
2. In this case, the Appellant had, in his application dated 8 September 2008, requested the CPIO for the certified copies of some documents relating to the disciplinary action taken against him. On not getting any reply from the CPIO within the stipulated time period, the Appellant preferred an appeal on 3 November 2008. It is not clear if the Appellate Authority passed any order or not. The Appellant however has approached the CIC in a second appeal. CIC/SM/A/2009/001282
3. In this case, the Appellant had, in his application dated 28 and 30 August 2008, requested the CPIO for the certified copies of some documents/information relating to both himself and one Kirpal Singh, an employee of the bank. On not getting the reply of CPIO in the stipulated time, the Appellant preferred an appeal on 20 October 2008. In his order dated 5 CIC/SM/A/2009/001282 & 1427 December 2008, the Appellate Authority furnished some information while declining some others by claiming exemption under Section 8 (1) (j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The Appellant, not satisfied with the information provided, has approached the CIC in a second appeal.
4. We heard both these cases together through videoconferencing. The Appellant was present in the Sirsa studio of the NIC. The Respondent was present in the Hissar studio. We heard their submissions. We also carefully examined the contents of both the RTI applications. Though belatedly, the CPIO has provided some information after the Appellate Authority directed him to do so. Even then, quite a large number of information is yet to be provided although the Respondent claimed that the records listed in the RTI application of 28 August had already been provided to the Appellant in the course of the disciplinary action itself. Be that as it may, we now direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant within 10 working days from the receipt of this order, the photocopies of all the relevant documents/information relating to both the RTI applications excluding those which have already been provided. We further direct the CPIO clearly to mention both the date and the reference number under which some of the information had been provided to the Appellant as claimed by him during the hearing.
5. As regards the delay in responding to the Appellant in both these cases, we direct the present CPIO to send a copy of this order to the officer who was the designated CPIO at the time these RTI applications had been filed with the further direction that that officer must appear before the Commission (Room No.8, Club Building, Old JNU Campus, New Delhi) in person or through his representative on 20 August 2010 at 11.00 a.m. to explain the reasons for the delay on his part in providing the desired information to the Appellant. It must be noted that if that officer will fail to appear and provide adequate reasons for CIC/SM/A/2009/001282 & 1427 the delay, we will proceed to decide on the imposition of penalty on him in terms of Section 20(1) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
6. With the above directions, both the appeals stand disposed off.
7. 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/SM/A/2009/001282 & 1427