Central Information Commission
Umang Maini vs Punjab National Bank on 29 October, 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/PNBNK/A/2023/646124
Umang Maini ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
Punjab National Bank, ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Jammu
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 26.05.2023 FA : 10.06.2023 SA : 24.09.2023
CPIO : 19.06.2023 FAO : 07.07.2023 Hearing : 25.10.2024
Date of Decision: 29.10.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.05.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Dates of all CLAC meetings held since January 2022 for Jammu Circle.
(ii) Name and Designation of the senior most authority that represented Circle Office Jammu, ZAO Amritsar and Zonal Office Amritsar respectively, in these meetings.
(iii) On the basis of the data put up and discussed in these meetings, kindly provide number and amount of suspense/imprest entries outstanding at different branches of the Circle relating to cash shortage in ATMs/BNAs (other than those Page 1 of 5 where overages got traced at Head Office). Kindly provide the list of such entries that were outstanding as at 01.01.2022 and also that got added up subsequently till date.
(iv) Number of such suspense/imprest entries (other than those where overages got traced at Head Office) that got adjusted during this period and the source of recovery, along with date of surpluses found parked against them, if any, in branch's impersonal accounts.
(v) Date of data entry in respect of such cases through the FRMS package individually in FMR-1 format (less than Rs.1.00 lakh) that get automatically captured in FMR-2 return and form part of the consolidated database relating to frauds for the respective bank.
(vi) Staff Side Action/Investigations, if any, for instances of these thefts.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 19.06.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
i. As per information sought by the applicant, dates of all CLAC meetings held since January 2022 for Jammu Circle are as follows:
1. 10.03.2022
2. 09.06.2022
3. 27.07.2022
4. 22.09.2022
5. 25.11.2022
6. 24.01.2023
7. 03.03.2023 ii. In terms of Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI act, 2005 information sought by the applicant cannot be provided, unless a larger public interest warrants the disclosure of the same. Hence, the information is accordingly denied.
iii. In terms of Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI act, 2005 information sought by the applicant, cannot be provided, because the entries are being considered as commercial confidence and disclosure of the same may harm the competitive Page 2 of 5 position. The same will be provided if a larger public interest warrants the disclosure of the same. Hence, the information is accordingly denied. iv. Being a part & parcel of the Point No 3, the information sought cannot be provided, unless a larger public interest warrants the disclosure of the same. Hence, the information is accordingly denied.
v. Being a part & parcel of the Point No 3 & 4, the information sought cannot be provided, unless a larger public interest warrants the disclosure of the same. Hence, the information is accordingly denied.
vi. Yes, but Name of the same/officials may not be provided in terms of Sec 8(1)(j).
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.06.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 07.07.2023 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 24.09.2023.
5. The appellant as well as the respondent remained absent during the hearing despite notice
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act vide letter dated 19.06.2023. The perusal of records further reveals that the appellant has sought for the personal information of third party on point nos. 2 to 6 of the RTI application, disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest. Hence, the CPIO correctly denied the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court Page 3 of 5 in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & amp; Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
7. In view of the above, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. However, both the parties remained absent during the hearing, despite hearing notices having been served upon them. The Commission takes serious note of the absence of the CPIO during the hearing without prior intimation. The respondent is required to submit written explanations citing reasons for his/her absence during the hearing before the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. With this observation and direction, the Appeal is disposed of.
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: 29.10.2024
Page 4 of 5
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 National Bank,
Circle Office, Gupta Towers,
Railway Road, Jammu-180012
2. Umang Maini
Page 5 of 5
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)