Central Information Commission
Sham Sunder vs Punjab National Bank on 10 July, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal Nos. (As per Annexure)
िशकायत सं ा / Complaint Nos. (As per Annexure)
ADJUNCT DECISION
Sham Sunder ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO:
Punjab National Bank,
Patiala, Punjab
2. CPIO:
Punjab National Bank,
Moga, Punjab
3. CPIO:
Punjab National Bank,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan
4. CPIO:
Punjab National Bank,
New Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondent(s)
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal(s) & complaint(s):
Sl. Second Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of
No. Appeal RTI CPIO's Reply First FAA's Order Second
/Compl Applicatio Appeal Appeal/
aint No. n Complaint
1. 601138 06.10.2023 Not on record 24.11.2023 Not on record 08.01.2024
2. 606871 13.11.2023 Not on record 22.12.2023 Not on record 15.02.2024
3. 614316 11.03.2024 29.03.2024 29.03.2024 04.04.2024 04.04.2024
4. 606872 13.11.2023 Not on record 22.12.2023 Not on record 15.02.2024
5. 614320 11.03.2024 29.03.2024 29.03.2024 04.04.2024 04.04.2024
Page 1 of 22
6. 601140 06.10.2023 Not on record 24.11.2023 Not on record 08.01.2024
7. 647890 27.08.2024 25.09.2024 26.09.2024 24.10.2024 29.10.2024
8. 650007 30.08.2024 27.09.2024 01.10.2024 29.10.2024 09.11.2024
9. 600006 12.11.2024 10.12.2024 16.12.2024 30.12.2024 30.12.2024
10. 601141 27.09.2021 06.01.2022 07.01.2022 02.01.2024 08.01.2024
11. 649697 01.09.2024 30.09.2024 Nil 06.11.2024 09.11.2024
Note: The instant set of appeal(s) & complaint(s) are clubbed for decision as these
emanate from similar RTI Applications & same subject grievance.
Date of Adjunct Hearing: 20.03.2025
Date of Adjunct Decision: 10.07.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The instant matter is being pursued in furtherance of the following CIC decision issued on 27.02.2025:
"Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2024/601138 + Complaint No. CIC/PNBNK/C/2024/601140
1. The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.10.2023 seeking information as under:
"In the attached file statement of account of improvement trust and letter of CO Patiala in which deposit of TDS quarter wise mentioned and letter of disposal of grievance number deabd/e/2023/0055009. Sir, it is case of cheating with the trust of customer, provide copy of guidelines depicting therein that public cannot raise the issue of cheating with the customer account in connivance with the official of department which is Govt. department cannot be raised on CPGRAM portal. Provide also guidelines depicting that issue of cheating reported not covered under public activity or interest as claimed in resolution."Page 2 of 22
1.1 Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 24.11.2023. The FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
1.2 Aggrieved with the non-receipt of FAA's order, the Appellant/Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal/Complaint dated 08.01.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2024/606871 + Complaint No. CIC/PNBNK/C/2024/606872
2. The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 13.11.2023 seeking information on the following points:
1. "BO SST Nagar Patiala deputed Sh. Ravi Kumar to give statement in the court (copy attached). Interest credited to account number ************2605 Rs.46065/- copy of the rules and guidelines on the basis of which interest credited in account manually.
2. Court asked for documents i.e. account opening form of account number ************2605. Sh. Ravi Kumar given statement that no record is available in the branch. Copy of record depicting destruction of record alongwith guidelines copy under which record was destroyed.
3. BO Model Town Patiala depute Sh. G S Saini to give statement in court (copy attached) that Sr. Manager has authority to refund the TDS, provide copy of guidelines circulated by bank empowering the Sr. Manager to refund the TDS and credited Rs.23997 it in account number ************3570 during FY 2007- 2008.
4. Sh. Saini also given statement that AOF attached with voucher of date the account was closed and destroyed after 8 years as per circular number 10/2016 dated 31/03/2016. Provide copy of circular as informed by Sh. Saini in his statement and also provide copy of guidelines that when the account is closed AOF be attached with vouchers passed for closure of account.Page 3 of 22
5. BO Rajpura Township depute Sh. Sudhir Kumar to give statement in court (copy attached) that AOF attached with voucher of date the account was closed and destroyed after 10 years. Provide copy of guidelines that when the account is closed AOF be attached with vouchers passed for closure of account and is to be destroyed after 19 years....." etc. 2.1 Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal on 22.12.2023. The FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
2.2 Aggrieved with the non-receipt of FAA's order, the Appellant/Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal/Complaint dated 15.02.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2024/614316 + Complaint No. CIC/PNBNK/C/2024/614320
3. The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 11.03.2024 seeking information as under:
"Please provide me the complete record of action taken on the attached letter sent by Improvement trust Paala to Circle Office Patiala on my complaint."
3.1 The CPIO vide letter dated 29.03.2024 rejected the request stating that "Applicant has not submitted his ID and proofs to prove that he is a citizen of India. Applicant is therefore advised to re-submit his application, duly signed by him along with requisite information and documents."
3.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 29.03.2024. The FAA vide order dated 04.04.2024 stated that:
"Applicant has not submitted his ID and proofs to prove that he is a citizen of India. Applicant is therefore advised to re-submit his application, duly signed by him along with requisite information and documents."
3.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant/Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal/Complaint dated 04.04.2024.
Page 4 of 22Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2024/647890
4. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.08.2024 seeking information with respect to 16 number of listed records:
"On 27/08/2024 Sh. Jai Lal Sr. Manager PNB Guruharsahai appeared and suffered statements that record destroyed. Pl provide information for all 16 points depicting therein:
1) Date of destruction of record.
2) IAD circular no on the basis of which record destroyed.
3) Copy of record having signature of officials in whose presence record destroyed.
4) Mode of destruction.
4.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 25.09.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Application is rejected under Section 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005 as information relates to personal information of third party the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual and pertains to information including commercial confidence.
Moreover, as per information received from concerned branch the application attached in the RTI application is also pending at court and same will dealt by court accordingly."
4.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.09.2024. The FAA vide order dated 24.10.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 29.10.2024.
Page 5 of 22Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2024/650007
5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.08.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. "Provide copy of minutes dated 06/08/2021 alongwith copy of bank guidelines which prohibit placing the minutes copy in the court.
2. Copy of the statement of persons taken during the investigation by IO alongwith number of such persons on complaint of sham sunder alongwith date on which statement of sham sunder recorded. and
3. Complete record of staff side case relating to Lapse attributed to Sh. Satwinder Singh, Manager, PF No 85371, BO: Dhulka (1187) under Amritsar Circle previously posted at BO: Talwandi Bhai (6838) for irregularities pointed out in Annual Inspection report dated 12.11.2015 of BO: Talwandi Bhai (6838) not placed by giving statement not available. Provide the record of missing record (which was not placed before the court) placed before the authority for action.
4. Copy of inspection report relating to the period of incumbency of Sh. Satinder Singh Bedi & Sh. Nitin Gupta not placed before the court on the ground that voluminous one. Provide dates of inspection reports alongwith number of pages each inspection report had.
5. Copy of the record placed before the competent authority of bank depicting therein that court appearance again required because complete record asked for not placed before the court in one go..." etc. 5.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 27.09.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"The matter pertains to court and same will be dealt as per the directions received from concerned court."Page 6 of 22
5.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.10.2024. The FAA vide order dated 29.10.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
5.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 09.11.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2025/600006
6. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.11.2024 seeking information as under:
"PIO PNB MOGA Circle as per letter attached is claiming that disclosure of information is exempt since the matter pertains to court and same will be dealt as per the directions received from the concerned court. The only exemption which may relate to matters in court is Secon 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act. Secon 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act exempts from disclosure information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court. From a plain reading of Secon 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act, it is clear that it does not include sub judice matters. Information may be exempted from disclosure in accordance with Secon 8 and 9 only and no other exemptions can be claimed while rejecting a demand for disclosure. As such disclosing information on matters which are sub judice cannot constitute contempt of Court, unless there is a specific order forbidding its disclosure. The mere claim that a matter is sub judice cannot be used as a reason for denying information under the RTI Act. PIO is again requested to provide the information asked for in the said application. PIO is also requested to provide information i.e. in which section he is claiming the exemption."
6.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 10.12.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Page 7 of 22"The matter pertains to court and same will be dealt as per the directions received from concerned court."
6.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.12.2024. The FAA vide order dated 30.12.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
6.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 30.12.2024.
Complaint No. CIC/PNBNK/C/2024/601141
7. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 27.09.2021 seeking information as under:
"Circle office Jodhpur vide letter dated 07/01/2015 informed me in appeal number CIC/MP/A/2014 dated 09/12/2014 that ICAI vide letter dated 14/09/2012 confirm having receipt of complaint dated 01/05/2010 and not of 04/08/2010. However, a complaint seems to be signed by me is also available in the record bearing the date, which although not clearly legible but appears to be 04.08.2010. Please provide the copy of the complaint which you seems is signed by me and appears to be of 04/08/2010 as claimed by you. please also advise section of RTI act which empower CPIO to give remarks i.e. However, a complaint seems to be signed by me is also available in the record bearing the date, which although not clearly legible but appears to be 04.08.2010."
7.1 The CPIO vide letter dated 06.01.2022 denied the information under Section 8(1)(i) of RTI Act, 2005.
7.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 07.01.2022. The FAA vide order dated 02.01.2024 observed that:
"RTI Application not visible on portal."Page 8 of 22
7.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 08.01.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2024/649697
8. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.09.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. "Vide order number CIC/PNBNK/A/2021/657373 and RTI application number PNBNK/R/E/23/02457 you have provided information. Same record was summoned by court in the Case Sham Sunder V/s CEO PNB & others at Faridkot.
Record placed before the court through 2 officials and the record provided under above noted case/RTI application not match i.e. record placed before the court not provided to me under RTI act. Provide section of the RTI act under which record was not provided to me but placed before the court. Similarly complete record summoned not placed before the court. Provide the copy of the rules/guidelines of the bank and law of the land under which complete record summoned has not been placed before the court.
2. Part amount of subsidy in the account of Smt. Binder Kaur account number ************0436 recalled due to tempering of record to get excess subsidy and returned. Provide the amount of interest reversed in the account on account of non-availability of subsidy (as per scheme interest on amount of subsidy available in the account be not charged in loan account) due to recalling/returning the same. Copy of record vide which facts of tempering the record for extending undue benefit to the party was informed to CGTMSE as well as to circle office alongwith staff side action taken.
3. Amount of subsidy in the account of Bhupindra Agri Works account number ************0436 recalled due to firm is existing firm not eligible under the scheme and returned. Provide the amount of interest reversed in the account on Page 9 of 22 account of non-availability of subsidy (as per scheme interest on amount of subsidy available in the account be not charged in loan account) due to recalling/returning the same. Copy of record vide which facts of tempering the record for extending undue benefit to the party was informed to circle office alongwith staff side action taken. Earlier the application was sponsored by PKVIB to SBOP and later on the same was sponsored to PNB. Provide record depicting therein the facts of rejecting/returning of application by SBOP because the rejected application by bank not sanction by other bank.
4. Facility was sanctioned to existing firm, Bhupindra Agro Industries account number ************0109 and proof is in the loan file in shape of CIBIL report, no due certificate from SBOP Talwandi Bhai, electric connection record on the file of bank etc., inspite of the facts that not eligible under the scheme. Provide the amount of interest reversed in the account on account of non- availability of subsidy (as per scheme interest on amount of subsidy available in the account be not charged in loan account) due to recalling/returning the same. Earlier the application was sponsored by PKVIB to SBOP and later on the same was sponsored to PNB. Provide recorddepicting therein the facts of rejecting/returning of application by SBOP because the rejected application by bank not sanction by other bank.
5. In the attached letter dated 27/09/2018 of state office of KVIC Chandigarh asked bank to return the margin money released in the account of Shiva Udyog at Firozepur city branch. Provide complete record of action taken on the said letter alongwith date of return of subsidy.." etc. 8.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 30.09.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Page 10 of 22"1-5: The information sought is neither clear nor specific, which does not fall within the definition of 'information' as provided u/s 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005. As such, the information sought cannot be provided...."
8.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated Nil. The FAA vide order dated 06.11.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
8.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 09.11.2024.
Hearing Proceedings & Decision
9. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent No.1, Nidhi Sharma, SM(Law) & Rep. of CPIO; for Respondent No.2, Ishant Sharma, CM & Rep. of CPIO; for Respondent No.3, Archana Agarwal, CM & Rep. of CPIO attended the hearing through video conference and for Respondent No.4, Jaseem Siddiqui, AGM- Law & Kunal Chauhan, Manager-Law attended the hearing in person.
10. The Commission took on record the written statement of the Appellant/Complainant filed prior to hearing stating his inability to attend the same and seeking for a decision on merits in each of these cases.
11. Respondent No.1 submitted in response to a Commission's query regarding not having provided any reply to the RTI Application(s) referred to in Second Appeal Nos. CIC/PNBNK/A/2024/601138 & 606871 that the reply was provided on 04.03.2024 denying the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Further, upon being asked to justify the denial of information under the said exemption, the Rep. of the CPIO remained clueless and mumbled aimless statements. Moving to the next case, the Rep. of CPIO was now asked to rationalize the rejection of the RTI Application referred to in Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2024/614316 for want of citizenship proof, while pointing out that in the other two RTI Application(s), no such rejection has been stated, thereby showing inconsistency in the reply provided by the same CPIO. In response, the Rep. of the CPIO sought to vaguely refer to some High Court judgment to argue that in Page 11 of 22 the State of Punjab & Haryana, proof of citizenship is mandatory to be provided by RTI Applicants and during the course of her submission, she was fidgeting with her mobile phone, which when rebuked upon was justified stating that she was looking for the relevant High Court citation.
Respondent No.2 upon being asked to justify the denial of the information in Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2024/647890 stated that the information sought for is an internal record and entails commercial confidence. At which point, the Commission noted that the Rep. of the CPIO was not even aware of the actual information sought for in the RTI Application as he sought to mechanically endorse the reply provided by the CPIO without appreciating that the RTI Application did not seek for the copy of the 16 documents but sought for the weeding out details of the said list of 16 documents. Similarly, for Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2024/650007 & 600006, the Rep. of CPIO reiterated that since the matter pertains to the Court, the same will be decided as per Court directions. Upon being asked for the exemption of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act that allows them to deny the information on such grounds, the Rep. of CPIO remained clueless.
Respondent No.3 expressing similar perplexity as her counterparts present from Patiala and Moga, submitted that the information was denied to the Complainant in Complaint No. CIC/PNBNK/C/2024/601141 under Section "81" of the RTI Act as it is related to Cabinet papers. Soon after when the Commission expressed sheer disbelief at the Section of the RTI Act quoted by the CPIO as well as the absence of any material on record to suggest Cabinet papers being sought for, the Legal Officer assisting the Rep. of CPIO admitted that the reply provided was wrong as the information sought for has no relation to Cabinet papers and that the CPIO's reply should have stated that no information has been sought for as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Respondent No.4 reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant in Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2024/649697. It was further submitted that the Appellant/Complainant is a habitual RTI Applicant filing dozens of RTI Application(s) every month over the past many years and it is believed that these RTI Application(s) emanate from a grievance of not being offered a post-retirement position in PNB. It was Page 12 of 22 also urged that considering the fact that the Appellant has never appeared for any of the hearings before the Commission, due regard may be had for the apparent lack of interest of the Appellant/Complainant in pursuing these cases or in getting access to information.
12. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes at the outset that the Complaints on record are not maintainable as these cases have been registered by the Complainant as Complaints under Section 18 of the RTI Act, but the complaint memo states that these are filed as second appeal(s) and relief is also sought for as per the provisions of Section 19(3) of the RTI Act.
For the said reason, Complaint Nos. CIC/PNBNK/C/2024/606872; 614320; 601140; 601141 are dismissed as not maintainable.
13. Now, concededly, the archives of the Commission suggest that till date close to 300 Appeal(s) & Complaint(s) of the Appellant/Complainant have been decided by various benches since the year 2010 and as early as in an order issued in bunch cases vide Case No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000599 + 5 other appeal(s), it had been observed as under:
"The Commission observes that the appellant is using the information available to him as bank employee to get further details of matters not related to him in the garb of public interest. He also does not appear to be serious about the information being sought as he has neither appeared through video conferencing nor in person. On earlier occasions too the appellant's more than 30 appeals were heard by the Commission, but he did not appear for hearing. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aditya Bandopadhyay had observed that "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....."
Now, the present bench has also opined in detail the avid misuse of the RTI Act being perpetuated by the Appellant vide decision(s) issued on 05.09.2024 in 48 nos. of Second Appeal(s) & Complaint(s), some of them filed against the present Respondent(s) Page 13 of 22 and few were against other offices of PNB but premised on similar nature of RTI Application(s) as in the instant set of cases. The following was thus held:
"The Commission notes that the Appellant has not been judicious in the use of RTI Act and has been using it as a tool to harass the Public Authority. In addition, the Appellant simply filed numerous second appeals and abstained himself to appear and contest in the hearing which shows his lackadaisical approach towards the system. The Appellant is therefore cautioned to exercise his right to information in an informed and judicious manner. The Appellant is reminded that filing the same request with the CPIO by a mere interplay of words will not change the narrative of the case which has been already decided by the Commission. He is therefore strongly advised to desist from filing repetitive RTI Applications as his future appeals/complaint on the same matter are liable to be summarily dismissed. Based on the above observation the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. The Respondents are also advised to take reference of the instant decision while dealing with any future RTI Applications of the Appellant on the same subject matter."
Considering the fact that the Appellant/Complainant has seemingly not bothered to pay heed to any amount of advisory issued to him against the aimless filing of RTI Application(s) & Appeal(s), the Commission is not inclined to issue any further observations or remarks on the same cause of action.
14. However, in the instant set of cases, the Commission is intrigued and baffled at the same time to note the absolute absence of any rationality or diligence in the execution of the statutory duty cast upon Respondent(s) 1, 2 & 3 hereinabove.
Firstly, Respondent No. 1 has erred in not having provided any reply to two of these RTI Application(s) within the stipulated time frame of the RTI Act. Yet, even as a belated reply was provided, a cryptic and irrelevant response was stated by the CPIO, and a grossly incorrect exemption was also cited without even appreciating the fact that the RTI Application(s) did not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Even further, the RTI Page 14 of 22 Application(s) filed in October & November 2023 did not attract any objection for want of citizenship proof while the RTI Application filed subsequently in March 2024 has been rejected by Respondent No.1 for want of citizenship proof.
Similarly, Respondent No.2 has arbitrarily denied the information stating that some Court will decide upon these RTI Applications of the Appellant, when no such exemption to disclosure of information is contained in the provisions of the RTI Act.
Adding insult to injury, Respondent No.3 has displayed absolute mockery of the RTI Act in having provided a reply with a single phrase quoting the exemption of Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act and pleading it as Section '81' of the RTI Act during the hearing twice over and even arguing that the query related to Cabinet papers, while in the same breath, the legal officer assisting Respondent No.3 takes a different stand altogether.
15. The combined conduct of these officers who have sought to represent PNB before the Commission have only brought shame to the public authority as they appear to be completely unbecoming of public servants and provide ample reason to cast aspersion on their expertise as designated officials of the bank; or as designated officials under the RTI Act and even raises reasonable doubt regarding the legal acumen of the legal officers who were sent to represent or assist the so-called representatives in these cases. It may be noted that the lack of merits in the instant set of second appeal(s) owing to repetition and non- conformity to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act does not negate the colossal mockery of the RTI Act displayed by Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 herein above.
16. Now, therefore, the Commission directs the designated THEN CPIOs (i.e. as on date of receipt of the RTI Application & as on date of CPIO's replies, wherever applicable) as well as the present CPIOs (i.e. Respondent No.1 & 2), who had detailed the representatives i.e. Nidhi Sharma, SM(Law) & Rep. of CPIO, PNB, Patiala and Ishant Sharma, CM & Rep. of CPIO, PNB, Moga, respectively, to attend the hearing to now personally appear before the bench on 20.03.2025 through video conference (time & venue will be notified by the registry attached with the bench).
Page 15 of 22The Respondent No.1 & 2 (both then & present CPIOs) will make sure that no other officer is detailed to represent them, and the appearance will be made in person during the video conference. Any failure to comply with the said direction will result in imposition of ex-parte penal & disciplinary action as per Section 20(1) & (2) of the RTI Act. The Respondent No.1 & 2 (both then & present CPIOs) shall show-cause as to why maximum penalty should not be imposed against them and disciplinary action should not be initiated against them, respectively, for the gross failure to adhere to the mandate of the RTI Act by way of deemed refusal; delayed reply; and for displaying absolute absence of rationality in having provided such replies on record.
Respondent No.1 & 2 shall ensure service of this order to the concerned then CPIOs (i.e. as on date of receipt of the RTI Application & as on date of CPIO's replies, wherever applicable) under due intimation to the Commission within 7 days of receipt of this order. Further, the Respondent(s) are directed to file proper detailed written explanation in the matter on the above-mentioned counts of omission and commission atleast 48 hours prior to the show-cause hearing.
The registry attached with this bench is directed to schedule a video conferencing slot for the Respondent(s)listed at 1 & 2 above.
As for Respondent No.3, since the Complaint is treated as not maintainable, the Commission is unable to proceed under Section 20 of the RTI Act against the erring CPIO, however, severe admonition is recorded for Archana Agarwal, CM & Rep. of CPIO for the absolute lack of sense and knowledge displayed by her during the hearing along with the legal officer assisting her. The concerned CPIO is warned against detailing such clueless officers to represent cases before the Commission in the future.
17. The instant second appeal(s) are disposed of accordingly."
Page 16 of 22Adjunct Hearing Proceedings & Decision
2. Rajeev Sharma, CM & CPIO, PNB, Moga along with Anil Kumar Mittal, AGM & CPIO, PNB, Patiala attended the hearing through video conference.
3. The Respondents urged for their pleading to be considered as filed in their respective written submissions. The Commission took on record the written submissions of Respondent No.1 i.e Anil Kumar Mittal, AGM & CPIO, PNB, Patiala dated 18.03.2025 stating as under:
"To briefly summarize the issues, it is reiterated that the applicant Sh. Sham Sunder has filed the RTI application on 27.08.2024 for seeking information regarding some internal guidelines of bank and some internal records of officials of the bank which was rejected well in time under Section 8(1) (j) and 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005, as information relates to personal information of third party the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual and pertains to information including commercial confidence on 25.09.2024. Also, Sh. Sham Sunder has filed another RTI Application on dated 30.08.2024 in which applicant (by giving reference of a court case) was asking to provide the guidelines under which bank has not placed the record to the court. Since there is no such guidelines persist and information sought was not valid and we have conveyed the applicant well in time vide letter dated 27.09.2024 that "The matter pertains to court and same will be dealt as per the directions received from concerned court" Applicant has again filed RTI application on 12.11.2024 in which he was seeking the same information which was filed in application on dated 27.09.2024. So the same was disposed off accordingly well on time.
In this regard, it is most humbly submitted that the applicant is an ex-employee of the Bank who has served at various places of the Bank and retired as Senior Manager and District Co-ordinator, Faridkot. As mentioned by the Hon'ble Commission in its decision, Page 17 of 22 the applicant is just using the information available to him to further get details of the matters which does not relate to him in any way by filing numerous RTI Applications with the Bank either physically or through the online mode, on similar subject matters, just to use it as a tool to harass the bank officials and to waste the precious time and resources of the Bank as well as the Commission. Due to this the regular work assigned to the dealing official also gets hampered.
Further, as per the guidance of Hon'ble Commission vide meeting dated 25-02-2025 on the captioned RTI Applications, we have revisited the applications and have provided the detailed (revised) reply to the applicant.
It is again humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Commission that the intentions of the undersigned or any of the dealing officials were never malafide and we undertake that such lapses would not be committed anytime in future. We have always provided the information wherever applicable to applicants well on time and we assure your goodself that the RTI Applications shall be disposed of in time and as per the correct provisions of Law.
In view of the above submissions, it is respectfully submitted that the Show Cause Notice may please be withdrawn. We shall be highly obliged for the same."
Similarly, vide letter of even date, Respondent No.2. i.e Rajeev Sharma, CM & CPIO, PNB, Moga submitted as under:
"To briefly summarize the issues, it is reiterated that the RTI application filed by the applicant Sh.Sham Sunder on 06.10.2023 was forwarded to the undersigned on 16.10.2023 and thereafter, the same was rejected u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 on
04.03.2024. Also, his RTI Application dated 13.11.2023 was forwarded to the undersigned on 21.11.2023 and was rejected u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 on 04.03.2024 and lastly, the RTI Application dated 11.03.2024 was forwarded to the undersigned on 12.03.2024 Page 18 of 22 which was rejected on 29.03.2024 for want of ID Proofs and the applicant was advised to re-submit the application along with the requisite document(s).
In this regard, it is most humbly submitted that the applicant is an ex-employee of the Bank who has served at various places of the Bank and retired as Senior Manager and District Co-ordinator, Faridkot. As also mentioned by the Hon'ble Commission in its decision, the applicant is just using the information available to him to further get details of the matters which do not relate to him in any way by filing numerous RTI Applications with the Bank either physically or through the online mode, on similar subject matters, just to use it as a tool to harass the bank officials and to waste the precious time and resources of the Bank as well as the Commission. Due to this the regular work assigned to the dealing official also gets hampered.
It is further submitted that the intentions of the undersigned or the dealing official were never malafide while dealing with any of the RTI Applications and due to other office exigencies and rush of miscellaneous tasks at the desk while receiving numerous similar applications from the applicant delayed the replies being sent to him.
Further, the applications were rejected u / s * 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as the same were related to the accounts/complaints of valuable customers of the Bank which were in no way related to the applicant nor did its disclosure lead to any public interest. The RTI application contained many points and all were rejected under one section inadvertently assuming that all related to the same account as mentioned in point no.1 of the application.
It is again submitted before the Hon'ble Commission that the intentions of the undersigned or any of the dealing officials were never malafide and we undertake that such lapses would not be committed anytime in future and all the RTI Applications shall Page 19 of 22 be dealt with utmost care and caution and the same shall be disposed of within the time frame and as per the correct provisions of Law."
4. The Commission having considered the submissions of the CPIOs finds that although no malafides or deliberate violation of the RTI Act provisions could be established, however, that does not take away the fact that the CPIOs failed to regard the provisions of the RTI Act due to their callousness and lack of application of mind. Further, in having sent representatives who were found to be totally inept in representing the bank before the Commission, the CPIOs caused further mockery of the mandate of the RTI Act and displayed an arrogant and arbitrary approach towards their statutory duty which is unacceptable and leaves much to the imagination about the commitment of the CPIOs towards upholding the letter and spirit of the RTI Act. The CPIOs are therefore issued with a strict warning to ensure against the recurrence of any similar instance in the future. The allegations of misuse of the RTI Act being endorsed by the CPIOs will bear credence only when the CPIOs first ensure execution of their statutory duty in the right spirit of the RTI Act.
5. With the above observations and warning issued, the Commission closes the show- cause proceedings.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 10.07.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 20 of 22 Addresses of the parties:
1. The PIO Punjab National Bank, CPIO, Circle Office: Patiala, S.C.O.-146, First Floor, Opposite Improvement Trust Building, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala, Punjab-147001
2. The CPIO Punjab National Bank, CPIO, Circle Office: Moga, 4th Floor, Darshan Singh Complex, Akalsar Chowk, G. T. Road, Distt-Moga, Punjab-142001
3. The CPIO Punjab National Bank, CPIO, Circle Office: Jodhpur, 802, Angira Darpan, 5th Chopasani Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342004
4. The CPIO Punjab National Bank, CPIO, (Law Division), Head Office: Plot No.-4, 3rd Floor, East Wing-(A), Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075
5. Sham Sunder Page 21 of 22 Annexure of Second Appeals/Complaints Sl. No. Second Appeal/Complaint No. 1 CIC/PNBNK/A/2024/601138 2 CIC/PNBNK/A/2024/606871 3 CIC/PNBNK/A/2024/614316 4 CIC/PNBNK/C/2024/606872 5 CIC/PNBNK/C/2024/614320 6 CIC/PNBNK/C/2024/601140 7 CIC/PNBNK/A/2024/647890 8 CIC/PNBNK/A/2024/650007 9 CIC/PNBNK/A/2025/600006 10 CIC/PNBNK/C/2024/601141 11 CIC/PNBNK/A/2024/649697 Page 22 of 22 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)