S K Kardam vs Punjab National Bank on 23 November, 2022

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

S K Kardam vs Punjab National Bank on 23 November, 2022

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 17.11.2020 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 15.07.2020 and first appeal dated 28.09.2020:-

A. "Non-payment of officiating:

1) The branch did not pay me officiating for August, October and December 2019 despite daily follow up. Appellant also wrote letter on 02.12.2019 and 04.02.2020 and send emails please let him know what action was taken on his letters/emails.

Page 1 of 5

2) Appellant complained in PNB SAMADHAN in this regard. Please let him know how the Samadhan Complaint was closed and what action was taken on his complaint.

(B)1) Appellant complained against discrimination and demeaning behavior vise his letter dated 05.12.2019 and 10.12.2019. Please let know what action was taken on these complaints.

2) Appellant followed up with branch on 29 February, 2 March, 4 March, 6 March and 16 March but he did not submit his Gratuity proposal.

3) Appellant Complained to the MD and CEO on March 20 and May 28 in 2020. Please let him know what action was taken on his complaint.

2) Gratuity and pension commutation was paid late. Appellant complained to the MD and CEO. Please let him know what action is taken against erring officials and why interest is not paid to him till date.

(D)1) Provide him calculation details and tax deducted on his terminal dues PF, Gratuity, leave encashment, pension commutation etc. (E) Scale V to VI result 2019-20 (kept in sealed cover)

1) Provide him marks obtained in interview and group discussion along with marks obtained by approved, empanelled and waitlist candidates.

(F) Scale IV to V result 2019-20 Page 2 of 5

1) Provide the marks obtained in written exam, interview and group discussion along with marks obtained by approved, empanelled and waitlist candidates."

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 15.07.2020 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, New Delhi, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO did not give any reply to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 28.09.2020. The First Appellate Authority (FAA)did not pass any order. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 17.11.2020 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 17.11.2020 inter alia on the grounds that no reply was received from the respondent. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 20.09.2020 which is reproduced as under:

"1. Officiating claim for the month of December 2019 of the appellant was received in March 2020. Adjustment voucher for officiating payment has been verified in HRMS on 27.03.2020

2. Adjustment voucher for officiating payment of the appellant was verified in HRMS on 27.03.2020.

3. It is not clear as to which department/division you have written your letters.

4. The query raised is not "Information" under sect 2(f) of the Right to Information act 2005.

5. Mode by which you have filed the complaint is not known as the same are not traceable in records.

6. It is not clear as to when you have complained to MD and CEO.

Page 3 of 5

7. Enclosed as Annexure 1.

8. It is the information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and it also cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual. Hence cannot provided under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act."

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Jaseem Siddiqui, Assistant General Manager (Law), Punjab National Bank, Delhi, attended the hearing in person.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case and while endorsing their reply dated 20.09.2020 inter alia submitted that they had provided point-wise information/reply to the appellant except for the marks obtained by waitlist candidates.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that due reply was given by the CPIO on 20.09.2020. Moreover, the respondent had provided the information about the marks selected by him as well as selected candidates to the appellant and was not under an obligation to provide the marks obtained by waitlist candidates. Further, in the absence of the appellant or any written objections thereof, the averments made by the respondent were taken on record. There appears to be no public interest in prolonging the matter further. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक/Date: 21.11.2022 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत#) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:

The CPIO Punjab National Bank Head Office Law Division (Right to Information Cell) 3rd Floor, East Wing Plot No. 4, Sector 10, Dwarka New Delhi- 110075 First Appellate Authority Punjab National Bank Head Office Law Division (Right to Information Cell) 3rd Floor, East Wing Plot No. 4, Sector 10, Dwarka New Delhi - 110075 Shri S K Kardam, Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission