Raj Kumar Bansal vs Punjab National Bank on 25 March, 2022

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Raj Kumar Bansal vs Punjab National Bank on 25 March, 2022

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 16.12.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through the RTI application dated 09.09.2019 and first appeal dated 18.10.2019:-

(i) Method/ modus operandi of enquiry of the complaint received from RBI against Mr. R K Rastogi PF No. 69968 presently DGM, I & C Deptt. at Gurugram.

(ii) List of NPA accounts of sanctioned by the aforesaid DGM with the name of committee members hold the enquiry for the period Mr. Rastogi remain posted in Mumbai.

Page 1 of 5

(iii) What are the measures or policy adopted by OBC management from the exploitation of top management of the staff by using unfair trade practices/tactics by using undue influence?

(iv) What is the procedure to restart the investigation when the CVO of OBC approval not taken in this matter and others matters too when NPA creators staff saved by top management by using their discretion in discriminatory manner first demoted then restored in case of Satish Parcha Br. Incumbent (now retired) Sr. Manager + Loan Incharge Mr. Yadav and Swaroop Singh, Chief Manager (Circle Office N/W Delhi)

(v) CPIO of the bank deny the information by taking the wrong stand saying this information belongs to personal information and exempted in Section 8 (1) (j) whereas in the present case the information sought by the applicant of Sh. R K Rastogi while discharging his official duties as responsible towards customers of the bank involves larger public interest and cause loss ot public money and exchequer. Denial of information shielding the dishonest and corrupt by abusing your authority required elaborate reply for further proceedings. It is requested to CPIO gather the information then decide the application, if she conclude to denial put the information in sealed cover for further decision by appellate authority and CIC to evaluate that required transparency adopted or not.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 09.09.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), erstwhile Oriental Bank of Commerce (now Punjab National Bank), Haryana, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 04.10.2019 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 18.10.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated Page 2 of 5 02.12.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 16.12.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 16.12.2019 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 04.10.2019 and the same is reproduced as under:-

(i) "The query raised by the appellant is not "information" under Right to Information Act, 2005. It is further stated that provisions of Right to Information Act do not required a Public Information Officer to give its opinion over certain fact.

(ii) It is the information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, and it also cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual and you failed to establish that larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. Hence cannot be provided under Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act.

(iii) The query is raised by you is not "information" under Right to Information Act, 2005. It is further stated that provisions of Right to Information Act do not require a Public Information Officer to give its opinion over certain fact.

(iv) The query raised by the appellant is not "information" under Right to Information Act 2005. It is further stated that provisions of Right to Information Act do not require a Public Information Officer to give its opinion over certain fact.

(v) The query raised by the appellant is not "information" under Right to Information Act, 2005. It is further stated that provisions of Right to Information Act do not require a Public Information Officer to give its opinion over certain fact."

Page 3 of 5

The FAA vide order dated 02.12.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra, CPIO and Deputy General Manager, 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 they had already provided point-wise reply to the appellant vide letter dated 04.10.2019 and the same was upheld by the FAA vide order dated 02.12.2019. They further submitted that the most of the information sought by the appellant was in the form of seeking opinion/explanations from the CPIO which did not fall within the definition of "information" as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.

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 respondent vide letters dated 04.10.2019 and 02.12.2019. Perusal of the RTI application reveals that the appellant had sought some clarifications and opinion from the CPIO which may not fall within the definition of "information" as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education &Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011] date of judgment 09.08.2011 wherein following observations were made:

"....A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority......."

6.1. Moreover, the appellant neither appeared before the commission in spite of notice to him nor filed any written objection to controvert the submissions made by the respondent. Hence, the submissions of the respondent are taken on record. In view of the Page 4 of 5 above, the Commission is of the view that no public interest would be served in further prolonging the matter. 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: 25.03.2022
Authenticated true copy

R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)


Addresses of the parties:
CPIO :
1. Central Public Information Officer,
Punjab National Bank,
Circle Office Patna North, R-Block,
Chanakya Tower, Second Floor,
Patna-800001

First Appellate Authority,
Punjab National Bank,
Circle Office Patna North,
R-Block, Chanakya Tower,
Second Floor, Patna-800001

Raj Kumar Bansal




                                                                                Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission