Central Information Commission
Lekh Raj vs Punjab National Bank on 31 January, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2022/130333
Lekh Raj ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
1. Punjab National Bank
Panipat, Haryana
2. Punjab National Bank
Sonepat, Haryana ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 16.03.2022 FA : 20.04.2022 SA : 17.06.2022
CPIO : No Reply FAO : No Order Hearing : 29.01.2024
Date of Decision: 31.01.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.03.2022 seeking information as under:
(i) "The Name and address of 1st appellate authority, Punjab National Bank (IFSC:
PUNB0230300), BPSMV, Khanpur Kalan Sonepat.
(ii) Two cheques were submitted in Punjab National Bank IFSC PUNB0230300, Bhagat Phool Singh Women University, Khanpur Kalan Sonepat in Cheque Page 1 of 4 number 8398640 (Rs. 4,00,000/-) and 839647 (Rs. 6,00,000/-) Dated 15th December 2021 Please provide the information of given below:
i. Please provide the information of above said cheques Movements. ii. Please provide the information of above said cheques normal collection period.
iii. Please provide the information of above said cheques passing routine period.
iv. Please provide the information of above said cheques if delay then who will be responsible person in bank."
2. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 20.04.2022 FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of any response, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 17.06.2022.
4. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Jaipal Saini, AGM & CPIO, PNB Circle Office, Panipat along with Sant Karan, Senior Manager & CPIO, PNB, Sonepat attended the hearing through video conference.
5. The Respondent, Jaipal Saini, AGM & CPIO, PNB Circle Office, Panipat tendered their unconditional regret stating that the RTI Application could not be replied to earlier by the then CPIO but as soon as the pendency of the same came to his notice, he provided the information to the Appellant on 18.07.2022 and the penalty amount due against late settlement of Cheque has also been credited to the Appellant's account.
6. The Appellant submitted vaguely that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, and upon the instance of the Commission, specified that for point no.4, he has not received the correct information as his grievance against the erring official has not been yet resolved and he is not being informed as to what investigation is being carried out against the said officer.
Page 2 of 47. The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, at the outset takes grave exception to the failure of then CPIO in not having provided any reply to the instant RTI Application. A copy of this order shall be served upon the then CPIO through the present CPIO for taking note of the severe admonition in this regard. Further, at this stage, it is observed that the grouse of the Appellant is not about having access to information, but it is about not being afforded with satisfactory grievance redressal in terms of taking action against the alleged erring officer. Here, the Appellant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties Page 3 of 4 concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied)
8. In view of the foregoing, no relief is warranted in the matter.
9. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 31.01.2024
Authenticated true copy
Suman Bala (सुमन बाला)
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
Punjab National Bank,
Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, Circle Office:
Panipat, S.C.O.-170, Sector 13-17, Huda,
Panipat, Haryana-132103
2. Then CPIO (designated as on 16.03.2022)
Punjab National Bank, Circle Office:
Panipat -To be served through the present CPIO
3. The CPIO
Punjab National Bank,
Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, B.P.S. Mahila
University, Khanpur Kalan, Gohna,
Sonepat, Haryana-131305
4. Lekh Raj
Page 4 of 4