Central Information Commission
Adishwar Jain vs Punjab National Bank on 21 June, 2023
Author: Suresh Chandra
Bench: Suresh Chandra
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग,मुिनरका
Baba GangnathMarg, Munirka
नईिद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीयअपीलसं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2018/139020
Adishwar Jain ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, Punjab National Bank,
Ludhiana. ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal
RTI :23.01.2018 FA : 05.03.2018 SA : 12.06.2018 CNC: 10.11.2021
CPIO : 12.02.2018 FAO : 16.03.2018 Order : 04.11.2020 Hearing:23.05.2023
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
SHRI SURESH CHANDRA
ORDER
(20.06.2023)
1. The issue under consideration is the complaint of non-compliance (CNC) of CIC's order dated 04.11.2020 in this matter.
2. an application dated 23.01.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, Ludhiana, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 12.02.2018:-
• Appellant sought documents relating to SARFAESI matter before the Court of District Magistrate in the matter of Punjab National Bank v Sundesh Springs Pvt. Ltd.
The CPIO replied on 12.02.2018. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 05.03.218. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 16.03.2018. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal Page 1 of 7 dated 12.07.2018 before the Commission which was under consideration and the Commission vide order dated 04.11.2020 passed the following directions:
"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observes that the appellant sought information which was in the custody of District Magistrate viz documents relating to SARFAESI matter before the Court of District Magistrate in the matter of Punjab National Bank v Sundesh Springs Pvt. Ltd. The documents which are part of court proceedings before any court are public documents and the same may be procured by following the procedure in vogue in that court. Thus the respondent bank may not be the custodian of the record. Moreover, the appellant has failed to establish that he was not a third party as he failed to procure board resolution. It may not be out of place to mention the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chief Information Commissioner vs. High Court of Gujarat:
"We do not find any merit in the above submission and that such cumbersome procedure has to be adopted for furnishing the information/certified copies of the documents. When there is an effective machinery for having access to the information or obtaining certified copies which, in our view, is a very simple procedure i.e. filing of an application/affidavit with requisite court fee and stating the reasons for which the certified copies are required, we do not find any justification for invoking Section 11 of the RTI Act and adopt a cumbersome procedure. This would involve wastage of both time and fiscal resources which the preamble of the RTI Act itself intends to avoid."
6.1. In view of the foregoing observations, the Commission notes that the appellant has an alternative effective machinery to obtain the documents by approaching the Tribunal. That being so, there appears to be no infirmity with the reply given by the CPIO vide letter dated 12.02.2018 and the information may be made available only if a copy of Board Resolution is provided by the appellant. With these observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of."
Page 2 of 73. The appellant vide letter dated 10.11.2021 filed complaint for non-compliance of the order of the Commission dated 20.08.2020.
4. In compliance of the order of the Commission, the CPIO vide letter dated 28.12.2021 replied that order of the District Magistrate was a public documents and could be obtained from the office of the District Magistrate and they claimed exemption under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act.
Hearing on 10.11.2022 4.1. The appellant attended the hearing through video conference and the respondent remained absent despite notice.
4.2. The Commission passed the following directions on 15.02.2023:
"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the appellant and perusal of records, observed that the respondent failed to comply with the directions given by the Commission. The respondent vide letter dated 28.12.2021 denied the information under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. The appellant during the course of hearing submitted that there was no investigation pending in his matter. Therefore, the exemption claimed was not sustainable in the eyes of law. The respondent remained absent in spite of written notice being served upon them. In view of the above, Shri Rajesh Kumar, the then CPIO (as on 04.11.2020), Shri Rakesh Walia, the present CPIO, are show caused to explain as to why maximum penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed upon each of them. The present CPIO is given a responsibility to serve this show cause order to the then CPIO and secure their written explanations and also ensure their attendance on the next date of hearing. All the written explanations (from the CPIOs) should reach the Commission within three weeks. Further, the respondent is also directed to revisit RTI application and Page 3 of 7 provide the revised information/reply as directed by the Commission in its order dated 04.11.2020, within four weeks of the date of receipt of this order."
Hearing on 23.05.2023
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Sunil Negi, present CPIO and Shri Harjot Singh, Law Officer, Punjab National Bank, Ludhiana attended the hearing through video conference.
5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that as per the instructions of the Hon'ble commission, he had provided copy of the resolution to the CPIO vide letter dated 30.11.2020. However, the respondent had not provided the information till the date of hearing despite the directions of the Commission. He further informed that there was no investigation pending in the above matter therefore the exemption claimed by the respondent was not sustainable in the eyes of law.
5.2. The respondent while defending their cases submitted that Shri Rajesh Kumar and Shri Rakesh Walia had submitted his written explanations vide letter dated Nil. Shri Rakesh Walia submitted that he had retired on 30.09.2022. The CPIOs further submitted that the appellant's case was pending before District Magistrate in Ludhiana and the appellant was very well aware of it and was attending the hearing regularly. They further stated that the appellant had submitted resolution and they had provided suitable reply to him. Further, they had replied to the appellant vide letter dated 25.02.2023 which is reproduced as under:
"In the matter of R.K. Murarka vs. Central Bank of India (Appeal No. 908/ICPB/2007, F. No. PBA/07/211 dated 17.09.2007. In this case, the Commission held that;
If the information sought relates to a pending proceeding before a competent court/tribunal, then the sais information should be obtained only through court/tribunal and not under the provision of the RTI Act"Page 4 of 7
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the respondent failed to comply with the Commission's directions. The respondent had neither challenged the order nor complied with the Commission's order dated 15.02.2023. The CPIOs have acted against the spirit of order. In spite of clear instructions and observations of the Commission, the respondent have pleaded that the matter was pending adjudication before court of law. It may not be out of place to mention that the information may not be denied merely on the ground of matter being sub judice and in absence of any court order, the inaction on the part of the CPIOs are defiant to the Commission's directions. Both CPIOs have brought out new grounds, which was never brought before the Commission when order dated 04.11.2020 was passed. This approach which has caused obstruction of information reveal the respondent's non-serious and lackadaisical attitude towards the provisions of the RTI Act as well as towards the Commission. In view of the mala fide on part of both the CPIOs, the Commission finds it a fit case for imposition of penalty under provisions of section 20 (1) of RTI Act.
6.1. The Commission notes that the negligence of duty as designated CPIOs appears to be deliberate and mala fide is established on part of both Shri Rajesh Kumar, former CPIO (as on 04.11.2020), Shri Rakesh Walia, former CPIO, hence, both are found liable as per section 20 (1) of RTI Act. In view of this, a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- each (Rupees Ten Thousand only) may be imposed on both and Rs. 10,000/- shall be deducted from each of their salaries/pensions of Shri Rajesh Kumar, former CPIO (as on 04.11.2020), Shri Rakesh Walia, former CPIO, by the Public Authority (in two equal monthly instalments) and paid by way of demand draft drawn in favour of "PAO, CAT", New Delhi, forward the demand drafts addressed to the Deputy Registrar (CR-II), email:
[email protected] Room No. 106, First Floor, Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi 110067. The first instalment of penalty amount should reach to the Commission by 30.07.2023 and final instalment should reach the Commission by 30.08.2023. Further, the present CPIO, Shri Sunil Negi has also failed to comply with the directions of the Commission. In view of the above, Shri Sunil Negi, present CPIO is show caused as to why penalty under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act may Page 5 of 7 not be imposed upon him for not furnishing the requisite information. All written submissions may be uploaded on the Commission's web portal within 21 days. Meanwhile, the respondent is directed that suitable revised reply/information be made available to the appellant and a copy of the same be uploaded on the Commission's web portal. Further, the respondent is directed to provide the information to the appellant within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा Information Commissioner (सूसूचनाआयु ) दनांक/ Date:20.06.2023 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) आर (R. Sitarama Murthy) ( . सीताराममू त ) Deputy Registrar (उपपंजीयक ) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:
CPIO :
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Circle Office, 5, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana - 141 001 (present CPIO is requested to serve The copy of the order to the then CPIO and Shri Sunil Negi, the present CPIO and secure written explanations) THE F.A.A, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, Circle Office, 5, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana - 141 001 Shri Sunil Negi, the present CPIO PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Circle Office, 5, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana - 141 001 Page 6 of 7 The CPIO:
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Circle Office, 5, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana - 141 001 ( For serving on the present CPIO & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Shri Rakesh Walia, the Then CPIO) SHRI ADISHWAR JAIN Page 7 of 7