Central Information Commission
Mrganga Singh Rawat vs Punjab National Bank on 10 June, 2014
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
websitecic.gov.in
Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2013/001147/MP
CIC/VS/A/2013/001058/MP
CIC/VS/A/2013/001160/MP
Appellant : Shri Ganga Singh Rawat, Moradabad
Public Authority : PNB, Moradabad
Date of Hearing : 10 June 2014
Date of Decision : 10 June 2014
Facts:
CIC/VS/A/2013/001147/MP
1. The appellant, Shri Ganga Singh Rawat, submitted RTI application dated 28 December, 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, Moradabad; seeking information regarding counterfeit bank notes seized form Kath Road Branch, Moradabad etc. through a total of 7 points.
2. Vide reply dated 4 February 2013, CPIO furnished pointwise information to the appellant. Not satisfied with the CPIO's replies on point nos.1, 3 ,5, 6 & 7, the appellant preferred appeal dated 27 February 2013 to the first appellate authority (FAA) alleging that he had been given incomplete information by the CPIO concerned. Vide order dated 22 April 2013, FAA upheld the CPIO's decision and also furnished additional information to the appellant.
3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard today via videoconferencing. The appellant did not attend the hearing. The respondents were represented by Shri R.B. Agrawal, Chief Manager and CPIO and Shri Rajesh Goyal from Moradabad.
5. The respondents submitted that the appellant had asked for information about the counterfeit currency notes recovered in Kath Road Branchy of Moradabad and they had duly responded to all the points. The respondents also added that the appellant had been asking for information on the same subject through a number of RTI applications filed by him.
Decision Notice
6. The CPIO has provided all the information as held by the public authority. The appeal is disposed of and the case closed.
CIC/VS/A/2013/001058/MP
1. The appellant, Shri Ganga Singh Rawat, submitted RTI application dated 19 September, 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, Moradabad; seeking information regarding counterfeit bank notes lying in the custody of Branch Office, Kath Road, Moradabad etc., through a total of 6 points.
2. Vide reply dated 29 October, 2012, CPIO furnished pointwise information to the appellant. Not satisfied with the CPIO's replies, the appellant preferred appeal dated 10 November 2012 to the first appellate authority (FAA) alleging that he had been given incomplete/misleading information by the CPIO concerned. Vide order dated 23 November 2012, FAA upheld the CPIO's decision.
3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard today via videoconferencing. The appellant did not attend the hearing. The respondents were represented by Shri R.B. Agrawal, Chief Manager and CPIO and Shri Rajesh Goyal from Moradabad.
5. The respondent submitted that the application of the appellant in which he sought information in the matter of counterfeit bank notes had been replied to and the information as held had been provided to him. The respondent also mentioned that the appellant is a dismissed employee of the PNB. He had gone to the court in the matter but the case has been decided against him. Since then, he has been seeking information through numerous RTI applications on the same subject.
6. The respondent added that the public authority has been very cooperative and has been giving all the information as may be seen from the three cases which came for hearing today.
Decision Notice
7. The Commission notes that the appellant is asking information on the same subject repeatedly and the public authority has been duly providing the information to him. The Commission would like to quote para. 37 of Aditya Bandopadhyay case which reads as follows : "37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under Clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in Section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
8. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed and the case is closed.
CIC/VS/A/2013/001160/MP
1. The appellant, Shri Ganga Singh Rawat, submitted RTI application dated 14 January 2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, Moradabad; seeking information regarding quashing of First Information Report (FIR) filed dated 17.6.2009 u/s 482 of Cr PC etc., through a total of 6 points.
2. Vide reply dated 9 February 2013, CPIO denied information on the point no. 4 on the ground of its being unclear and furnished rest of the information to the appellant . Not satisfied by the CPIO's replies on all the points, the appellant preferred appeal dated 22 March 2013 to the first appellate authority (FAA) alleging that he had been given incomplete information by the CPIO concerned. Vide order dated 23 April 2013, FAA upheld the CPIO's decision.
3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard today via videoconferencing. The appellant did not attend the hearing. The respondents were represented by Shri R.B. Agrawal, Chief Manager and CPIO and Shri Rajesh Goyal from Moradabad.
5. The appellant had sought information regarding the date of quashing of the FIR filed on 17.6.2009 along with the names of officers who issued the orders in the matter. He had also asked for the names of officers who had taken action in the matter of counterfeit currency notes.
6. The CPIO had responded to all the points. With reference to point no. 4, the CPIO, however, stated during the hearing that the copy of the letter has been provided to the appellant. In his second appeal, the appellant has alleged that the information given to him is not correct. He has, however, not substantiated his contentions. He also did not attend the hearing to explain the reasons of his disagreement with the CPIO's reply. It is also seen that he has asked for similar information through a number of RTI requests.
Decision Notice
7. The information sought for by the appellant has been provided by the public authority. The appeal is dismissed and the case is closed.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(T. K. Mohapatra) Deputy Secretary & Dy. Registrar Tele. No. 01126105027 Copy to:
Central Public Information Officer First Appellate Authority Punjab National Bank Circle Office, Ramganga Vihar II, Moradabad, UP.
First Appellate Authority Punjab National Bank Circle Office, Ramganga Vihar II, Moradabad, UP.
Shri Ganga Singh Rawat, H78, Buddha vihar, Majhola Line Par, Moradabad, UP.