Central Information Commission
Ankit Anand vs Punjab & Sind Bank on 13 February, 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/PASBK/A/2022/629205
Ankit Anand ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Punjab & Sind Bank
Punjab ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 20.04.2022 FA : 09.05.2022 SA : Nil
CPIO : 28.04.2022 FAO : 25.05.2022 Hearing : 12.02.2024
Date of Decision: 13.02.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.04.2022 seeking information stated as under:
"I was working in Punjab and Sind Bank from 2016 to 2021. My employee ID is A26123. Bank registered F.I.R. against me for hacking email ID [email protected] while I was working in lead bank office, Ludhiana. Hence, I would like to know the following: -
(i) Was I an authorized person to access email ID [email protected] while I was working in Lead bank office, Ludhiana?Page 1 of 4
(ii) Was [email protected] an official e-mail ID used by lead bank office, Ludhiana?
(iii) Has Punjab and Sind Bank or Lead bank office, Ludhiana suffered any financial loss or any other loss due to hacking of email ID [email protected]?
(iv) Who created email ID [email protected] and who gave permission to create [email protected]?
(v) When an official e-mail ID of Punjab and Sind Bank offices and branches cannot be accessed if password is forgotten, Can the concerned department of Zonal offices and Head office of Punjab and Sind Bank restore the password of any official email ID of Punjab and Sind Bank?"
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 28.04.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"As far as question number 1 and 3 in your RTI Application is concerned the reply is yes. As far as question number 2 is concerned we may inform you that [[email protected] was used for various correspondence with the other banks as well as for providing important information's with them. The information sought in question number 4 & 5 is confidential information the disclosure of which may cause the unwarranted invasion of privacy of our bank. Therefore, the information sought in question number 4 & 5 is rejected under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.05.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 25.05.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Ram Swaroop, CPIO, attended the hearing through video conference.
Page 2 of 46. The appellant inter alia insisted upon the information sought in point nos (iv) and
(v) of the RTI application. He further stated that he was an employee in the respondent bank from the period 2016 to 2020. He contended that false allegations were raised against him for alleged misuse of the official email-ID allotted to him. Thereafter, he challenged the decision of the Inquiry authorities and was acquitted by court of law. In his RTI application, he had requested for details of the official who created the official email ID allotted to him during his service period and pleaded that the same was not disclosed by the respondent.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had raised queries including hypothetical questions, which could not have been addressed in material form. They further argued that the information sought in point nos. (iv) and (v) of the RTI application was not maintained in due course, hence, was not available under their custody.
8. The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that an appropriate reply was given by the CPIO on 28.04.2022. Perusal of the contents of the RTI application reveals that the appellant had raised questions seeking answers/clarifications to hypothetical queries. The appellant insisted for information sought in point nos (iv) and (v) of the RTI application, wherein the respondent pleaded that the information desired was not maintained in due course. It may be noted that the public authority may not be compelled to inquire into matters in pursuance to receipt of the RTI application and create information in case the same was not maintained by them in due course of business. Therefore, the information sought for by the Appellant does not strictly conform to Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. That being so, the Commission finds no ground for further intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
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: 13.02.2024
Page 3 of 4
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड )) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Punjab & Sind Bank, AGM & Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, Zonal Office: Ludhiana, Noble Encl., 5th Floor, Bhai Balachowk, Ludhiana, Punjab-141001
2. Ankit Anand Page 4 of 4