Central Information Commission
Ramchet R Yadav vs Punjab National Bank on 16 October, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2023/121400
Ramchet R Yadav ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Punjab National Bank
Mumbai ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 10.10.2022 FA : 29.12.2022 SA : 12.05.2023
CPIO : 09.11.2022 FAO : 16.01.2023 Hearing : 08.10.2024
Date of Decision: 16.10.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2022 seeking information on the following points:
"Regarding Cheque Return/Cheque bounce Charges & all Circulars/Orders issued by PNB board in Special Scheme for One Time Settlement (OTS) of Non- Performing Assets since 1st April, 2011 till date.
(i) As per bank rules Pl. explain in details, what is meant by Cheque bounce/ Cheque Return & whether the Bank Charges for the same. If yes, Pl. provide Page 1 of 5 certified copies of all circulars issued by competent authority of Punjab National Bank for the same.
(ii) If the customer have sufficient balance in his account in such circumstance under what condition the customer's cheque may be returned by the banker.
(iii) Since 1st April, 2011 till date, how many times Board of Punjab National Bank has come out with the Special Scheme for One Time Settlement (OTS) of Non-
Performing Assets (NPA). Pl. Provide certified copies all the Circulars/Orders issued by Competent Authorities of PNB for the same.
(iv) Pl. Provide certified copy of lists of all eligible OTS beneficiaries from 01/4/2011 till date."
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 09.11.2022 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"The information sought is an internal correspondence/communication. Hence cannot be provided."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.12.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 16.01.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
(i) "(a) As per Bank rules, Cheque bounce/Cheque return means a Cheque that is not paid by the financial institution on which it was drawn. The usual reason for a returned Cheque is that the account on which it was drawn does not contain enough funds to pay for the full amount of the Cheque.
(b) Cheque returning charges are levied as per Banks internal guidelines from time to time.
(c) Certified Copies of all Circulars cannot be provided as the information sought is an internal correspondence/communication.Page 2 of 5
(ii) There are different circumstances under which the cheque may be returned if the customer have sufficient balance in his account. The different reasons are given below-
1. Effects not cleared, present again
2. Exceeds Arrangement
3. Refer to drawer
4. Kindly contact drawer/Drawee Bank and please present again.
5. Drawer's Signature Incomplete.
6. Drawer's Signature Illegible.
7. Drawer's Signature differs.
8. Drawer's Signature required.
9. Drawer's Signature not as per mandate:
10. Drawer's Signature to operate account not- received.
11.Alteration require drawer's authentication.
12.Payment stopped by drawer.
13.Instrument Postdated.
14. Instrument out dated/stale
15. Instrument undated /without proper date.
16. Cheque irregularly drawn/amount in words and figures differ.
17. Payee's endorsement required.
18.Alteration on instrument-other than-"Date"
19. Fake/Forged/Stolen-draft/Cheque/cash Order/interest warrant/dividend warrant.
20. Payment stopped by attachment order.
21. Payment stopped by court order.
22. Withdrawal stopped owing to death of account holder.
23. Withdrawal stopped owing to lunacy of account holder.
24. Withdrawal stopped owing to insolvency of account holder.
25. Wrongly delivered /not drawn on us.
26. Account closed Page 3 of 5
27. Title of account required.
28. No such account.
29. Other reasons.
The above mentioned are some of the reasons on which the cheque may be returned. However, there are various reasons for which the cheque can be returned depending on the different circumstances.
(iii) The information sought is an internal correspondence/communication. Hence, cannot be provided.
(iv) The information sought is an internal correspondence/communication. Hence cannot be provided."
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 12.05.2023.
5. The appellant attended the hearing through video conference; and the respondent remained absent.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had denied the information sought in point nos (iii) and (iv) of the RTI application without claiming any exemption under the provisions of the RTI Act. Besides, the information with respect to the remaining points in the RTI application was incomplete and misleading.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the appellant and perusal of records, observes that the respondent while partly denying the information did not invoke any exemption clause as per Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act. It may be noted that queries raised in point nos (i) and (ii) of the RTI application were in the nature of seeking clarifications, which were not covered under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. The information sought in point no. (iv) of the RTI application concerned third parties and beneficiaries and details thereof are exempted under the provisions of Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. However, the information sought in point no. (iii) of the RTI application concerning circulars/orders cannot be denied merely on the ground that the Page 4 of 5 same were internal correspondences. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to re-visit point no. (iii) of the RTI application and provide the copy of requisitioned circulars/orders to the appellant, after following the procedure laid down in Section 10 of the RTI Act for severing information exempted under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act, if any, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission. Moreover, the Commission takes serious note of the respondent's absence during the hearing despite having received the hearing notice sent by the Registry of the Commission. In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to submit (upload on Commission's web portal) written explanations citing reasons for his/her absence during the hearing, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission. With these observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलं गम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनां क/Date: 16.10.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कनल एस एस िछकारा, (%रटायड) Dy. Registrar (उप पं जीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Punjab National Bank Supervision and Records Department Division Office, Mumbai City Market Towers "F" Wing Cuff Road, Mumbai - 400005
2. Ramchet R Yadav Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)