Vishnu Vinod Sonkar vs Punjab National Bank on 15 May, 2023

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Vishnu Vinod Sonkar vs Punjab National Bank on 15 May, 2023

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 04.12.2021 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 28.09.2021 and first appeal dated 02.11.2021:-

 Reg: Requirement of information and documents under RTI Act in connection with the Charge sheet issued to me on 23.12.2020 in a tender dated 24.02.2020 of SHGB Rohtak for outsourcing of work of office attendant for the branches of category A & B for which Tender was floated in the month of February 2020 by obtaining approval of the then Chairman vide his order dated 12.09.2019.

(i) The name and designation of the competent authority in Punjab National Bank (sponsor bank), who can overrule the decisions taken by the Board of Directors of Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank.

Page 1 of 4

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 28.09.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, New Delhi, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO did not any reply to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 02.11.2021. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) did not pass any order. Subsequently, the CPIO replied vide letter dated 03.12.2021. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 04.12.2021 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 04.12.2021 inter alia on the grounds that no reply was received from the respondent. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. Perusal of the records submitted by the appellant while filing the second appeal dated 04.12.2021 reveals that neither the CPIO nor the FAA provided any information or any reply to the appellant within the prescribed time limit. Subsequently, the CPIO replied vide letter dated 03.12.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:

"As far as awarding of punishment and overruling the Board's decision is concerned, both being two distinct issues cannot be clubbed with each other, hence, information sought does not appear to be specific in present context. The information sought by the applicant does not fall within the definition of "information" under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act."

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Jaseem Siddiqui, AGM (Law) and Shri Kunal Chauhan, Law Officer, Punjab National Bank, New Delhi attended the hearing in person.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he worked as Assistant General Manager in the respondent bank and two years prior to his retirement, he was deputed as the General Manager of Gramin bank. He further stated that he was served a charge sheet for major non-vigilance just eight days before his retirement; and was demoted to the post of Chief Manager. He contended that the authority who had taken the decision for his demotion was not the competent authority. Therefore, he had sought information about the hierarchy of the Page 2 of 4 authorities for decision-making within the bank. However, the respondent had not provided the requisite information till the date of hearing.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the query raised by the appellant could not be addressed to in material form and the same was beyond the scope of the provisions of the RTI Act. They further stated that the appellant had expressed a grievance and had indirectly challenged the authority of the decision-making authorities who had awarded him a punishment.

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 had replied and stated that the information sought by the appellant was not covered under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Although, perusal of the RTI application revealed that the appellant had raised a question which was hypothetical in nature, it was made clear during the course of hearing that the appellant wanted to know the powers of the authorities derived from the guidelines, if any. Therefore, in the interest of administration of justice, it may be appropriate if the guidelines containing powers and functions of various authorities including General Manager, Disciplinary Action Committee (PNB) and the powers Board of Directors of Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, be made available to the appellant within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With these observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक/Date: 12.05.2023 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत ) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:

THE CPIO PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, RTI TO INFORMATION CELL, LAW DIVISION, 3RD FLOOR, EAST WING (A), PLOT NO. 4, SECTOR 10, DWARKA, HO: NEW DELHI-110075 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, RTI TO INFORMATION CELL, LAW DIVISION, 3RD FLOOR, EAST WING (A), PLOT NO. 4, SECTOR 10, DWARKA, HO: NEW DELHI-110075 SH. VISHNU VINOD SONKAR Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission