Neeraja Srivastava vs Punjab National Bank on 28 June, 2022

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Neeraja Srivastava vs Punjab National Bank on 28 June, 2022

1. The issues under consideration i.e. the reliefs sought by the complainant in the complaint dated 03.09.2019 due to alleged non-supply of information vide RTI application dated 21.10.2014 are as under:-

Initiate action under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act and impose penalty amount on previous officers of Punjab National Bank Kindly award compensation for the harassment, humiliation and mental agony suffered by the complainant

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the complainant filed an application dated 21.10.2014 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Page 1 of 5 Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab national Bank, Rajendra Place, New Delhi, seeking following information:

(i) "Why respondent Bank Punjab National Bank, C - Block, East of Kailash, New Delhi is holding back in there custody original Hoodies despite our demand to your Bank to return Hoodies to us. So that we can recover our payment from Mr. Sabir Khan. We had also filed a police complaints against Sabir Khan in the year 27.02.2012.

(ii) Why Bank, C - Block, East of Kailash, New Delhi, provided them true copies of the original bills and original Hoodies in the year 12.10.2011 not the original Hoondies and Bills.

(iii) Why Bank has not made Sabir Khan the party in the court case when Sabir Khan had became the defaulter with the Bank and System Tele Communication during the course of court case by not fulfilling his promise and committed the breach of trust.

(iv) Why Bank has never produced the original Hoondies in the court in Civil Suit. We want from bank, C - Block, East of Kailash Branch, New Delhi to returned Hoondies and bills so that they can be able to recover our payments from Mr. Sabir Khan.

(v) We also want to know the Bank interest Hoondies amount till today."

The CPIO vide letter dated 19.11.2014 replied to the complainant. Aggrieved with the same, the complainant filed first appeal dated 09.12.2014. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 17.01.2015 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant filed a complaint dated 03.09.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The complainant has filed the instant complaint dated 03.09.2019 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 19.11.2014 informed that the information sought by the complainant in points no. (i) to (v) were in the form of queries, hence, did Page 2 of 5 not fall under the purview of definition of "information" under Section 2 (f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Further, it had been informed by the branch that as per the extant guidelines of the bank the records were required to be kept in the bank up to 10 years only. The Hundies and cheques required by the complainant which related to the year 1989 and 1990 respectively were more than 10 years old and the old record up to 31.03.2002 were destroyed by the branch on 05.11.2012. The FAA vide order dated 17.01.2015 upheld the reply of the CPIO.

Hearing on 15.02.2022 4.1 The complainant's representative Shri Vibhu Srivastava and on behalf of the respondent Shri Anil Thakur, Chief Manager & CPIO and Shri Ashish, Law Officer, Punjab National Bank, Delhi attended the hearing in person.

Interim order dated 10.03.2022 4.2 The Commission has passed the following observations and directions on 10.03.2022:-

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the reply given by the respondent was evasive. The complainant contended that the respondent had concealed the documents and had taken false plea that the documents sought were not available. In view of the above, the Shri Anil Thakur, CPIO, and the then CPIO (as on 19.11.2014) are show caused as to why penalty under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act may not be imposed upon each of them for not furnishing the requisite information. The present CPIO is given the responsibility to serve a copy of this order upon the then CPIO and secure his written explanations as well as his attendance on the next date of hearing. All written submissions may be uploaded on the Commission's web portal within 21 days."

Page 3 of 5

Hearing on 09.06.2022

5. The Complainant's representative Shri Vibhu Srivastava and on behalf of respondent Advocate Ms. Indu Waul, Punjab National Bank, Delhi attended the hearing in person.

5.1 The complainant inter alia submitted that information sought was not provided by the respondent despite show cause notices issued to them. 5.2. Ms. Indu Waul appeared on behalf of the bank and sought time to produce copy of authority letter of the bank.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that Ms. Indu Waul (Advocate) who appeared on behalf of the respondent bank failed to produce copy of authority letter of the bank. Moreover, the CPIOs neither appeared before the Commission nor filed any written submission despite service of show cause notices. The conduct of the respondent was viewed seriously by the Commission. However, in the interest of justice, the Commission gives final opportunity to the respondent to appear before the Commission to present the case and file their written submissions. Accordingly, the Shri Anil Thakur, CPIO, and the then CPIO (as on 19.11.2014) are show caused as to why penalty under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act may not be imposed upon each of them for not furnishing the requisite information. The present CPIO is given the responsibility to serve a copy of this order upon the then CPIO (as on 19.11.2014) and secure his written explanations as well as his attendance on the next date of hearing. All the written submissions (from both the CPIOs) may reach to the Commission within three weeks.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सु सुरेशचं ा) ा Information Commissioner (सू सूचनाआयु ) दनांक/Date: 28.06.2022 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत!) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties CPIO: PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE, NORTH DELHI, 3RD FLOOR, VIKRANT TOWER, RAJENDRA PLACE, DELHI-110008.

FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE, NORTH DELHI, 3RD FLOOR, VIKRANT TOWER, RAJENDRA PLACE, DELHI-110008.

CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER: PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE, NORTH DELHI, 3RD FLOOR, VIKRANT TOWER, RAJENDRA PLACE, DELHI-110008.

MS. NEERAJA SRIVASTAVA Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission