M S Reen vs Punjab National Bank on 13 April, 2022

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

M S Reen vs Punjab National Bank on 13 April, 2022

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 30.12.2019 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 18.09.2019 and first appeal dated 30.10.2019:-

Arrange to provide a copy of the advertisement on the basis of which he was appointed in the bank's service.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 18.09.2019 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 vide letter dated 15.10.2019 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 30.10.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) did not pass any order. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 30.12.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.

Page 1 of 3

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 30.12.2019 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. 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. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 15.10.2019 and the same is reproduced as under:-

"It is informed that it is 39 years old record and as per bank's policy no more available."

The FAA did not pass any order.

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

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the advertisement was more than 39 years old. Moreover, the recruitment was carried out by BSRB, hence, they were not custodian of the information.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that due reply was given by the CPIO on 15.10.2019. Moreover, a public authority not being the custodian of the information may not be compelled to collate or create the information. Further, in the absence of the appellant or any written objections thereof, the averments made by the respondent were taken on record. There appears to be no public interest in prolonging the matter further. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-


                                                                                    सुरेश चं ा)
                                                                 (Suresh Chandra) (सु        ा
                                                                                 सूचना आयु )
                                                      Information Commissioner (सू
                                                                       दनांक/Date: 12.04.2022
Authenticated true copy

R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)
                                                                                       Page 2 of 3
 Addresses of the parties:
CPIO :
1. The CPIO
Punjab National Bank 2nd
floor, East Wing (A) Plot No
4, sector 10 Dwarka,
 New Delhi-110075

The First Appellate Authority
 Punjab National Bank
2nd floor, East Wing (A) Plot No 4,
Sector-10, Dwarka New Delhi 110075

M S Reen




                                      Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission