Central Information Commission
Mrganga Singh Rawat vs Punjab National Bank on 28 April, 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/2012/001218/MP
Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001229/MP
Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001231/MP
Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001232/MP
Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001265/MP
Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001298/MP
Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001299/MP
Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001370/MP
Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001678/MP
Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001712/MP
Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001217/MP
Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001178/MP
Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001227/MP
Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001014/MP
Appellant : Shri Ganga Singh
Rawat, Moradabad
Public Authority : PNB, New Delhi/ Moradabad
Date of Hearing : 28 April 2014
Date of Decision : 28 April 2014
Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001218/MP
Facts:
1. The appellant, Shri Ganga Singh Rawat, submitted RTI application dated 2 April 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, New Delhi, seeking information regarding his earlier reminder/complaint dated 9.3.2012, addressed to Shri K.R. Kamath, hon'ble Chairman & Managing Director, Punjab National Bank, through a total of 5 points.
2. The appellant preferred appeal dated 15 June 2012 to the first appellate authority (FAA), when he did not receive any reply from the CPIO concerned within stipulated time. Vide reply dated 21 June 2012, CPIO furnished pointwise information to the appellant. Vide order dated 26 June 2012, FAA held that the CPIO had already furnished the information vide reply dated 21 June 2012 and he also upheld the same.
3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission alleging that the CPIO as well as the FAA did not furnish him satisfactory information on all points.
4. The matter was heard today. The appellant, Shri Ganga Singh Rawat, was present at the hearing. The respondents, Shri R. B. Agarwal, CPIO and Shri Mohan Singh, ACPIO, were also present in person.
5. The appellant submitted that copy of the dak receiving register (acknowledging the receipt of his complaint) had not been provided. The appellant further sought any existing guidelines on the basis of which no action was taken against the employees of the public authority. Copy of the office note taken from the Customer Care Cell had not been provided.
6. The respondents submitted copy of dak receiving register (severing any third party information) along with the copy of the office note taken from the Customer Care Cell dated 12.6.2012 (dealing with appellant's complaint) may be provided to the appellant. The CPIO further clarified that no action was warranted against any employee of the organization against the appellant's complaint.
Decision Notice
7. The Commission accepts the submission of the CPIO that information as held by them, has been provided to the appellant. However, the CPIO is directed to provide copy of dak receiving register (severing any third party information) along with the copy of the office note/letter from the Customer Care Cell dated 12.6.2012 (dealing with appellant's complaint) to the appellant within one week.
Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001229/MP Facts:
1. The appellant, Shri Ganga Singh Rawat, submitted RTI application dated 16 April 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, New Delhi, seeking information regarding his earlier complaint dated 6.4.2012, through a total of 4 points.
2. The appellant preferred appeal dated 15 June 2012 to the first appellate authority (FAA), when he did not receive any reply from the CPIO concerned within stipulated time. Vide reply dated 22 June 2012, CPIO furnished information to the appellant. Vide order dated 26 June 2012, FAA held that the CPIO had already furnished the information vide reply dated 22 June 2012 and he also upheld the same.
3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission alleging that the CPIO as well as the FAA did not furnish him satisfactory information on all points.
4. The matter was heard today. The appellant, Shri Ganga Singh Rawat, was present at the hearing. The respondents, Shri R. B. Agarwal, CPIO and Shri Mohan Singh, ACPIO, were also present in person.
5. The appellant submitted that copy of the dak receiving register (acknowledging the receipt of his complaint) had not been provided.
6. The respondent submitted that copy of dak receiving register (severing any third party information) will be provided to the appellant. The information sought in rest of the RTI application had been provided.
Decision Notice
7. The Commission is satisfied that information as held by the public authority has been provided to the appellant as submitted by the CPIO.
Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001231/MP Facts:
1. The appellant, Shri Ganga Singh Rawat, submitted RTI application dated 16 May 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, New Delhi, seeking information regarding his earlier letter dated 13.42012, through a total of 9 points.
2. The appellant preferred appeal dated 2 July 2012 to the first appellate authority (FAA), when he did not receive any reply from the CPIO concerned within stipulated time. Vide order dated 13 July 2012, FAA held that the CPIO had already furnished pointwise information to the appellant vide reply dated 4 July 2012 and also upheld the same. He also furnished a copy of the CPIO's reply dated 4 July 2012 to the appellant
3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission alleging that the CPIO as well as the FAA did not furnish him satisfactory information.
4. The matter was heard today. The appellant, Shri Ganga Singh Rawat, was present at the hearing. The respondents, Shri R. B. Agarwal, CPIO and Shri Mohan Singh, ACPIO, were also present in person.
5. The CPIO submitted that information sought in the RTI application had been provided. The appellant also agreed that he did not need any further information in the matter.
Decision Notice
6. The Commission is satisfied that information as held by the public authority has been provided to the appellant as submitted by the CPIO.
Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001232/MP Facts:
1. The appellant, Shri Ganga Singh Rawat, submitted RTI application dated 2 April 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, New Delhi, seeking information regarding his earlier complaint dated 18.3.2012 addressed to Shri K.R. Kamath, hon'ble Chairman & Managing Director, Punjab National Bank, through a total of 6 points.
2. Vide reply dated 25 May 2012, CPIO furnished pointwise information to the appellant. Not satisfied with the CPIO's reply, the appellant preferred appeal dated 29 June 2012 to the first appellate authority (FAA). Vide order dated 14 July 2012, FAA upheld the CPIO's decision and also further clarified the same.
3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission alleging that the CPIO as well as the FAA did not furnish satisfactory information on all points.
4. The matter was heard today. The appellant, Shri Ganga Singh Rawat, was present at the hearing. The respondents, Shri R. B. Agarwal, CPIO and Shri Mohan Singh, ACPIO, were also present in person.
5. The appellant submitted that information pertaining to three dates had not been provided to him. The CPIO submitted that information sought in the RTI application had been provided. It was clarified at the hearing that only one FIR (relating to fake currency notes including three dates) was sent to the Police station by Regd. Post and a copy of the same was available with the appellant vide letters dated 21.12.2013 and 25.3.2014.
Decision Notice
6. The Commission is satisfied that information as held by the public authority has been provided to the appellant as submitted by the CPIO.
Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001265/MP Facts:
1. The appellant, Shri Ganga Singh Rawat, submitted RTI application dated 16 April 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, New Delhi, seeking information regarding his earlier complaint dated 5.12.2011 addressed to Shri K.R. Kamath, hon'ble Chairman & Managing Director, Punjab National Bank, through a total of 7 points.
2. The appellant preferred appeal dated 23 June 2012 to the first appellate authority (FAA), when he did not receive any reply from the CPIO concerned within stipulated time. Vide reply dated 22 June 2012, CPIO furnished pointwise information to the appellant. No order had been passed by the FAA in this case.
3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission alleging that the CPIO did not furnish him satisfactory information.
4. The matter was heard today. The appellant, Shri Ganga Singh Rawat, was present at the hearing. The respondents, Shri R. B. Agarwal, CPIO and Shri Mohan Singh, ACPIO, were also present in person.
5. The CPIO submitted that information sought in the RTI application (including point nos. 6 and 7) has been provided through the reply of Senior Manager, Shri Satbir Singh.
Decision Notice
6. The Commission is satisfied that information as held by the public authority has been provided to the appellant as submitted by the CPIO. However, another copy of the reply already furnished by the Senior Manager, KUMS, Moradabad may be provided to the appellant within one week.
Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001298/MP Facts:
1. The appellant, Shri Ganga Singh Rawat, submitted RTI application dated 2 April 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, New Delhi, seeking information regarding his earlier complaint dated 3.1.2012 addressed to Shri K.R. Kamath, hon'ble Chairman & Managing Director, Punjab National Bank, through a total of 7 points.
2. Vide reply dated 4 June 2012, CPIO furnished pointwise information on point nos. 1, 2 and 6; denied information sought in point nos. 3, 4 & 5 on the ground that the information sought was not available with them and also denied information sought in point no. 7 on the ground that it was not clearly asked for. Not satisfied with the CPIO's reply, the appellant preferred appeal dated 29 June 2012 to the first appellate authority (FAA). Vide order dated 14 July 2012, FAA upheld the CPIO's decision and also further clarified the same.
3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission alleging that the CPIO as well as the FAA did not furnish him satisfactory information on all points.
4. The matter was heard today. The appellant, Shri Ganga Singh Rawat, was present at the hearing. The respondents, Shri R. B. Agarwal, CPIO and Shri Mohan Singh, ACPIO, were also present in person.
5. The respondents submitted that information sought in points 3 to 6 of the RTI application is not available with the Moradabad C.O. and hence may not be provided to the appellant.
Decision Notice
6. The Commission accepts the submissions of the respondents that some of the information sought in para. 5 is not available with the Moradabad C.O. and hence, may not be provided. The appeal is dismissed and the case closed.
Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001299/MP Facts:
1. The appellant, Shri Ganga Singh Rawat, submitted RTI application dated 10 March 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, New Delhi, seeking information regarding his earlier complaint dated 5.11.2011 addressed to Shri K.R. Kamath, hon'ble Chairman & Managing Director, Punjab National Bank, through a total of 6 points.
2. Vide reply dated 21 May 2012, CPIO furnished pointwise information to the appellant. Not satisfied with the CPIO's reply, the appellant preferred appeal dated 4th June 2012 to the first appellate authority (FAA). Vide order dated 11 July 2012, FAA upheld the CPIO's decision and also further clarified the same.
3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission alleging that the CPIO as well as the FAA did not furnish him satisfactory information on all points.
4. The matter was heard today. The appellant, Shri Ganga Singh Rawat, was present at the hearing. The respondents, Shri R. B. Agarwal, CPIO and Shri Mohan Singh, ACPIO were also present in person.
5. The appellant submitted that two different replies have been submitted by the CPIO.
6. The CPIO submitted that the RTI application was replied by the Personnel Administration Division (PAD) (handling employee grievance) and Customer Care Cell (which usually takes up complaint of general public). However no information is available with the Customer Care Cell.
Decision Notice
7. The Commission accepts the submissions of the respondents that information sought is not available with the Customer care cell and hence, may not be provided. However, the CPIO is directed to make another effort to trace the information sought in point No. 5 and 6 of the RTI application and the outcome of the search is to be informed to the appellant within two weeks.
Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001370/MP Facts:
1. The appellant, Shri Ganga Singh Rawat, submitted RTI application dated 23 June 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, New Delhi, seeking information regarding complaint dated 5.5.2012 sent to Shri K.R. Kamath, hon'ble Chairman & Managing Director, Punjab National Bank by Shri Ashok Mishra regarding counterfeit currency notes, through a total of 5 points.
2. Vide reply dated 19 July 2012, CPIO denied the information on the ground that the said letter had not been received in the department concerned. Not satisfied with the CPIO's reply, the appellant preferred appeal dated 27 July 2012 to the first appellate authority (FAA). No order has been passed by the FAA in this case.
3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission alleging that the CPIO as well as the FAA did not furnish him satisfactory information on all points.
4. The matter was heard today. The appellant, Shri Ganga Singh Rawat, was present at the hearing. The respondents, Shri R. B. Agarwal, CPIO and Shri Mohan Singh, ACPIO were also present in person.
5. The CPIO submitted that no complaint, as mentioned in the RTI application has been received by the department concerned of the public authority and added that the letter was from a third party.
Decision Notice
6. The matter is remanded back to the CPIO for a decision in view of his submissions.
Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001678/MP Facts:
1. The appellant, Shri Ganga Singh Rawat, submitted RTI application dated 2 July 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, New Delhi; seeking information regarding his earlier letter dated 13.5.2012 sent to Shri K.R. Kamath, hon'ble Chairman & Managing Director, Punjab National Bank, through a total of 5 points.
2. Vide reply dated 1 August 2012, CPIO furnished pointwise information. Not satisfied with the CPIO's reply, the appellant preferred appeal dated 13 August 2012 to the first appellate authority (FAA). Vide order dated 11 September 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 alleging that the CPIO as well as the FAA did not furnish him satisfactory information on the all the points.
4. The matter was heard today. The appellant, Shri Ganga Singh Rawat, was present at the hearing. The respondents, Shri R. B. Agarwal, CPIO and Shri Mohan Singh, ACPIO were also present in person.
5. The CPIO submitted that information sought in the RTI application has been provided.
Decision Notice
6. The Commission is satisfied that information as held by the public authority has been provided to the appellant as submitted by the CPIO.
Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001712/MP Facts:
1. The appellant, Shri Ganga Singh Rawat, submitted RTI application dated 23 June 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, New Delhi, seeking information regarding his earlier representation dated 31.5.2012 sent to Shri K.R. Kamath, hon'ble Chairman & Managing Director, Punjab National Bank, through a total of 7 points.
2. Vide reply dated 1 August 2012, CPIO furnished pointwise information. Not satisfied with the CPIO's reply, the appellant preferred appeal dated 13 August 2012 to the first appellate authority (FAA). Vide order dated 11 September 2012, FAA upheld the CPIO's decision and also further clarified the same.
3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission alleging that the CPIO as well as the FAA did not furnish him satisfactory information on the all the points.
4. The matter was heard today. The appellant, Shri Ganga Singh Rawat, was present at the hearing. The respondents, Shri R. B. Agarwal, CPIO and Shri Mohan Singh, ACPIO, were also present in person.
5. The CPIO submitted that information sought in the RTI application had been provided. It was clarified that public authority did send the FIR through Regd. post but FIR was not registered by the police.
Decision Notice
6. The Commission is satisfied that information as held by the public authority has been provided to the appellant as submitted by the CPIO.
Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001217/MP Facts:
1. The appellant, Shri Ganga Singh Rawat, submitted RTI application dated 2 April 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, New Delhi, seeking information regarding his earlier letters dated 6.12.2011 & 25.1.2012, through a total of 7 points.
2. Vide reply dated 28 May 2012, CPIO furnished information to the appellant. Not satisfied with the CPIO's reply, the appellant preferred appeal dated 15 June 2012 to the first appellate authority (FAA). Vide order dated 20 July 2012, FAA upheld the CPIO's decision and also further clarified the same.
3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission alleging that the CPIO as well as the FAA did not furnish him satisfactory information.
4. The matter was heard today. The appellant, Shri Ganga Singh Rawat, was present at the hearing. The respondents, Shri R. B. Agarwal, CPIO and Shri Mohan Singh, ACPIO, were also present in person.
5. The CPIO submitted that information sought in the RTI application had been provided to the appellant.
Decision Notice
6. The Commission is satisfied that information as held has been provided to the appellant as submitted by the CPIO.
Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001178/MP Facts:
1. The appellant, Shri Ganga Singh Rawat, submitted RTI application dated 4 February 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, New Delhi, seeking information regarding his earlier complaints dated 9.12.2011, 10.12.2011 & 11.1.2012, through a total of 6 points.
2. Vide reply dated 2 March 2012, CPIO furnished information to the appellant. Not satisfied with the CPIO's reply, the appellant preferred appeal dated 23 March 2012 to the first appellate authority (FAA). Vide order dated 31 March 2012, FAA upheld the CPIO's decision and also further clarified the same.
3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission alleging that the CPIO as well as as the FAA did not furnish him satisfactory information.
4. The matter was heard today. The appellant, Shri Gagan Singh Rawat, was present at the hearing. The respondents, Shri R. B. Agarwal, CPIO and Shri Mohan Singh, ACPIO, were also present in person.
5. The CPIO submitted that the present matter has already been decided by the CIC as on 10.4.2013.
Decision Notice
6. The Commission dismisses the present appeal as per the submission of the CPIO. The case is closed.
Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001227/MP Facts:
1. The appellant, Shri Ganga Singh Rawat, submitted RTI application dated 16 May 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, New Delhi, seeking information regarding his earlier letter dated 13.42012, through a total of 9 points.
2. The appellant preferred appeal dated 2 July 2012 to the first appellate authority (FAA), when he did not receive any reply from the CPIO concerned within stipulated time. Vide order dated 13 July 2012, FAA held that the CPIO had already furnished pointwise information to the appellant vide reply dated 4 July 2012 and also upheld the same. He also furnished a copy of the CPIO's reply dated 4 July 2012 to the appellant
3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission alleging that the CPIO as well as the FAA did not furnish him satisfactory information.
4. The matter was heard today. The appellant, Shri Ganga Singh Rawat, was present at the hearing. The respondents, Shri R. B. Agarwal, CPIO and Shri Mohan Singh, ACPIO, were also present in person.
5. The appellant submitted that the name of the advocate of the public authority who ledged the FIR had not been given. The CPIO submitted that additional information had been provided by the FAA.
Decision Notice
7. The Commission is satisfied that information as held has been provided to the appellant as submitted by the CPIO.
Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001014/MP Facts:
1. The appellant, Shri Ganga Singh Rawat, submitted RTI application dated 2 April 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, Moradabad, seeking information regarding his earlier complaint dated 22.1.2012 addressed to Shri K.R. Kamath, hon'ble Chairman & Managing Director, Punjab National Bank, through a total of 6 points.
2. Vide reply dated 18 May 2012, CPIO furnished information to the appellant. Not satisfied with the CPIO's reply, the appellant preferred appeal dated 15 June 2012 to the first appellate authority (FAA), alleging that the CPIO concerned had deliberately not furnished information on point no. 6 of the RTI application. Vide order dated 22 June 2012, FAA upheld the CPIO's decision and also further clarified the same.
3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission alleging that the CPIO as well as the FAA did not furnish him satisfactory information.
4. The matter was heard today. The appellant, Shri Ganga Singh Rawat, was present at the hearing. The respondents, Shri R. B. Agarwal, CPIO and Shri Mohan Singh, ACPIO, were also present in person.
5. The CPIO submitted that the information sought in points 3 and 5 of the RTI application may not be provided as the matter is still pending with the higher authorities.
Decision Notice
6. The Commission remands the present matter back to the CPIO to check with the department concerned and provide specific and point wise information to the appellant within 2 weeks of the receipt of the order of the Commission as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
7. The Commission has observed that in the above cases the appellant has unnecessarily filed 14 RTI applications concerning only one subject matter i.e., his complaint filed with the PNB, Moradabad. The applicant is hereby advised to use the cherished right given in the RTI Act, 2005 in a diligent matter so as not to waste the time and resources of the public authorities in disposing of frivolous RTI applications.
8. The CIC would like to draw attention of the RTI applicant to the observation of the Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr.Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011) dated 09.08.2011) "...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. ... 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 nonproductive 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."
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(T.K. Mohapatra) Dy. Secretary & Dy. Registrar Tele.No. 01126105027 Copy to:
Central Public Information Officer Punjab National Bank Management, Audit & Review Division, RTI Cell, Rajendra Bhawan, Rajendra Place Head Office, New Delhi.
First Appellate Authority Punjab National Bank Management, Audit & Review Division, RTI Cell, Rajendra Bhawan, Rajendra Place Head Office, New Delhi.
Central Public Information Officer Chief Manager Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Ramganga Vihar II, Moradabad, UP.
Shri Ganga Singh Rawat, H78, Buddha Vihar, Majhola Line Par, Moradabad, UP.