Central Information Commission
Sham Sunder vs Punjab National Bank on 6 September, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No./Complaint No. (As Per Annexure)
Sham Sunder ... अपीलकता /Appellant /
...िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
1. Punjab National Bank,
Bathinda
... ितवादीगण/Respondent
2. Punjab National Bank,
Fazilka
Relevant dates emerging from the appeals/Complaints:
Sl. Second Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of
No. Appeal / RTI CPIO's First FAA's Order Second
Complaint Application Reply Appeal Appeal /
No. Complaint
1. 649590 29.06.2023 25.07.2023 27.07.2023 Not on record 20.10.2023
2. 649588 22.06.2023 25.07.2023 27.07.2023 Not on record 20.10.2023
3. 649581 01.07.2023 25.07.2023 27.07.2023 18.09.2023 20.10.2023
4. 656013 06.10.2023 11.12.2023 24.11.2023 18.12.2023 22.12.2023
5. 656012 06.10.2023 11.12.2023 24.11.2023 18.12.2023 22.12.2023
6. 649923 29.06.2023 25.07.2023 27.07.2023 Not on record 20.10.2023
7. 649920 29.06.2023 25.07.2023 27.07.2023 Not on record 20.10.2023
8. 649928 22.06.2023 25.07.2023 27.07.2023 Not on record 20.10.2023
9. 649925 22.06.2023 25.07.2023 27.07.2023 Not on record 20.10.2023
10. 649591 29.06.2023 25.07.2023 27.07.2023 Not on record 20.10.2023
11. 649587 22.06.2023 25.07.2023 27.07.2023 Not on record 20.10.2023
12. 649577 01.07.2023 25.07.2023 27.07.2023 18.09.2023 20.10.2023
13. 645776 01.07.2023 25.07.2023 27.07.2023 18.09.2023 20.10.2023
Page 1 of 18
14. 645774 01.07.2023 25.07.2023 27.07.2023 18.09.2023 20.09.2023
Note - The above-mentioned Appeals have been clubbed together for
decision as these are based on similar facts.
Date of Hearing: 02.09.2024
Date of Decision: 05.09.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/C/2023/649590 Complaint No. CIC/PNBNK/C/2023/649923 Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2023/649920 Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2023/649591
1. The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.06.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) In response to grievance number DEABD/E/2020/37323 I was informed that already taken view and not related to the complainant. Provide copy of view already taken by authority as claimed. Provide copy of guidelines that no person can raise the issue on CPGRAM portal in respect of fraudulent act of extending undue benefit to party by the officials of bank.
(ii) Copy of the response dated 18/09/2019 and 14/02/2020 in respect of grievance number DEABD/E/2020/26503.
(iii) Provide copy of view already taken by authorities in this matter as claimed in the resolution of grievance number DEABD/E/2020/38772.
(iv) Provide copy of reply already been made as claimed in the resolution of grievance DEABD/E/2020/44791.
(v) Provide copy of view already taken by authorities in this matter as claimed in the resolution of grievance number DEABD/E/2020/46317.
..., etc./ other related information Page 2 of 18 1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 25.07.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"In this connection we inform that reply of all the queries raised from time to time have been already replied as per the decision of the competent authority at that time.
Further, as on date all the files/data related to you has been sent to Circle Office Fazilka, post Amalgamation of OBC with PNB."
1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 27.07.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The order of FAA, if any, is not on the record of the commission.
1.3. Due to non-receipt of any order from the First Appellate Authority, the Appellant/Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeals/Complaints dated 20.10.2023.
Complaint No. CIC/PNBNK/C/2023/649588 Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2023/649928 Complaint No. CIC/PNBNK/C/2023/649925 Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2023/649587
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.06.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) PF number 37125 Sh Sushil Kumar while submitting PAR for 31/03/2012 in self appraisal (not to be filled more than two pages) filled two pages dated 06/06/2012 attached with PAR, highlighting fraudulent activity carried out in the branch. provide complete record of action taken on the submissions of Sh Kumar against the culprit for fraudulent activity.
(ii) PF No 37125 Sushil Kumar & Sh Davincer Pal PF No 30828 transferred from Guruharsahai to Muktsar Main, BO Rampuraphul to Guruhasahai approved by Page 3 of 18 circle head Bathinda on 05/06/2012 and as per HRDD circular letter no 12/2008 dated 31/07/2008 permission from GM HRD must have taken by CH. On 19/06/2012 PF No 37125 Sushil Kumar & Sh Mahesh Kumar Sharma PF No 63023 transferred from Guruharsahai (by canceling order dated 05/06/2012) to FTC Mehraj, BO Khuian Sarwar to Abohar main respectively, approved by circle head Bathinda and as per HRDD circular letter no 12/2008 dated 31/07/2008 permission from GM HRD must have taken by CH. Provide record of permission given by GM HRDD including the letter for seeking permission sent by CH to GM HRD.
(iii) in the order dated 24/5/2013 (PF No 30513) it was mentioned - in terms of transfer policy of the bank i.e. HRD Division Circular No 392 dated 16/04/2007 an officer transferred to other office/station on promotion or in the same capacity should not be transferred back to the same station/office within a period of 2 years, Sham Sunder will be eligible to seek transfer in terms of guidelines of the bank after completing the tenure. 1) Provide copy of circular as mentioned above by highlighting the narration as quoted by GM in his order dated 24/05/2013. 2) copy of request in which sham sunder asked for the transfer to same station/office be provided.
(iv) MARD vide letter number MARD/RTI/APPEAL/88/2013 dated 07/09/2013 provided me copy of letter of PAD number PAD/MR/ RTI dated 06/08/2013. At point number 6 of letter dated 06/08/2013, it was informed that we reiterate that the complaint was received by CO Bhatinda and not at HO. Whereas facts are that complaint was received by CMD and sent to CO Bathinda proof attached).
1) Provide information as per record for my further action in the matter. At point number 7 it was mentioned that the information demanded does not relate to our department. 2) Provide copy of guidelines under which point was not transferred to CPIO to which it relates. 3) also provide information as asked for.Page 4 of 18
(v) vide letter PSLB/FWT/207/002/RKS/2016 dated 29/02/2016 PNB farmer welfare trust, conveyed extension (Bhatinda Circle) of two year to Sh Gill. 1) Provide copy of guidelines empowering the trust to give extension to Sh Gill beyond the age of 65 years. 2) provide copy of guide lines on the basis of which he was given consolidated conveyance inspite of the facts that he was provided with the trust vehicle for use. provide copy of guidelines on the basis of which he was paid diem allowance as applicable to working staff by Bathinda Circle.
..., etc./ other related information 2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 25.07.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"In this connection we inform that reply of all the queries raised from time to time have been already replied as per the decision of the competent authority at that time.
Further, as on date all the files/data related to you has been sent to Circle Office Fazilka, post Amalgamation of OBC with PNB."
2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 27.07.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The order of FAA, if any, is not on the record of the commission.
2.3. Due to non-receipt of any order from the First Appellate Authority, the Appellant/Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeals/Complaints dated 20.10.2023.
Complaint No. CIC/PNBNK/C/2023/649581 Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2023/649577 Complaint No. CIC/PNBNK/C/2023/645776 Page 5 of 18
3. The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.07.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Bank have submitted contradictory response to my issues vide letter dated 14/11/2017 copy appended you have informed me that matter is being looked into by the concerned department at yours. now you are informing that the issues mentioned in the complaint have already been raised by you from time to time at various forums, reply of which has already been sent to HO to drop the complaint. in this connection i request you to provide me the copy of the record of correspondence taken place between the period 14/11/2017 to 07/05/2018 with the head office for getting the issues drop vide email dated 08/05/2018 to cobtdaudit, [email protected] Tue, 8 May 2018 at 9:35 pm. Provide copy of record of issue referred to HO with recommendation to drop the complaint and response of HO, on the recommendation.
3.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 25.07.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"In this connection we inform that reply of all the queries raised from time to time have been already replied as per the decision of the competent authority at that time.
Further, as on date all the files/data related to you has been sent to Circle Office Fazilka, post Amalgamation of OBC with PNB."
3.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 27.07.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 18.09.2023 stated as under:
"Information sought is not specific as more than 150 complaints have been lodged during period 14/11/2017 to 07/05/2018 by the Applicant on CPGRAM Portal and the same has been dropped by the competent authority.
Applicant has not provided any grievance number of which he wants to sought the Information.Page 6 of 18
Hence, without the grievance number we are unable to proceed further.
Also, Hon'ble CIC vide order no. CIC/MP/A/2016/001479 has observed that, "The appellant is using the information available to him as bank employee to get further details of matters not related to him in the grab of public interest. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging of their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing' at the cost of their normal duties"."
3.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant/Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeals/Complaint dated 20.10.2023.
Complaint No. CIC/PNBNK/C/2023/656013 Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2023/656012
4. The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.10.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) In case filed in Faridkot court title sham sunder V/s CMD, CO JDH & CO Bhatinda in the written statement it was mentioned that appeal filed against the order of the disciplinary authority in the charge sheet dated 24/02/2012 has been dismissed. Provide record of dismissal of appeal along with record vide which communication of dismissal of appeal sent to me.
4.1. Having not received any reply from the CPIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 24.11.2023.
4.2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 11.12.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"In this connection we inform that we have taken up the matter with CO: Fazilka as all the files/data related to you have been sent to Circle Office Fazilka, post Page 7 of 18 Amalgamation of OBC with PNB and as per information received they have taken up the matter with the concerned Department at HO. At present such information is not available in their record.
As such, henceforth, we request your good self to take up with CO: Fazilka."
4.3. The FAA vide order dated 18.12.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4.4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant/Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal/Complaint dated 22.12.2023.
Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2023/645774
5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.07.2023 seeking information on the point no.44 that is as under:
(i) Bank have submitted contradictory response to my issues vide letter dated 14/41/2017 copy appended you have informed me that matter Is being looked into by the concerned department at yours. now you are informing that the issues mentioned in the complaint have already been raised by you from time to time at various forums, reply of which has already been sent to HO to drop the complaint. in this connection I request you to provide me the copy of the record of correspondence taken place between the period 14/11/2017 to 07/05/2018 with the head office for getting the Issues drop vide email dated 08/05/2018 to cobtdaudit, [email protected] Tue, 8 May, 2018 at 9:35 pm. Provide copy of record of Issue referred to HO with recommendation to drop the complaint and response of HO, on the recommendation.
5.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 25.07.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
In this connection we inform that reply of all the queries raised from time to time have been already replied as per the decision of the competent authority at that time.Page 8 of 18
Further, as on date all the files/data related to you has been sent to Circle Office Fazilka, post Amalgamation of OBC with PNB.
5.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.07.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 18.09.2023 stated that:
Information sought is not specific as more than 150 complaints have been lodged during period 14/11/2017 to 07/08/2018 by the Applicant on CPGRAM Portal and the same has been dropped by the competent authority.
Applicant has not provided any grievance number of which he wants to sought the information.
Hence, without the grievance number we are unable to proceed further.
Also, Hon'ble CIC vide order no. CICIMP/A/2016/001479 has observed that, "The appellant is using the information available to him as bank employee to get further details of matters not related to him in the grab of public interest. The nation does not want a scenario where 76% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging of their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing' at the cost of their normal duties".
5.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 20.09.2023.
Hearing Proceedings:
6. The Appellant/Complainant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Kuldeep Chief manager, Mr. Ishant Midda Dy. Manager (PNB, Fazilka) and Mr. Kulpreet Singh Chief Manager (PNB, Bathinda) attended the hearing through video conference.
Page 9 of 187. The Respondent (PNB, Fazilka) while defending their case inter alia tendered their written submissions. For the sake of clarity, some significant parts of the written submissions of the Respondent(s) (PNB, Fazilka) are reproduced hereunder:
"...This is in reference to the captioned subject. We would like to inform that applicant has submitted RTI application dated 29.06.2023, which was further transferred to the different Controlling Offices by Head Office. We have received the said RTI application on 19.07.2023 to submit reply of point no. 62 of RTI application. Our office has submitted reply to the applicant vide letter dated 24.08.2024. Applicant has raised appeal before First Appellate Authority on dated 22.08.2023, reply of FAA was submitted to the applicant vide letter dated 15.09.2023. Further, Circle Office Bathinda had transferred an FA appeal to our office on portal vide reference no. PNBNK/A/E/23/0478. Our office has submitted the complete reply to the applicant vide letter dated 20.12.2023 (reply enclosed).
Information sought raised in the multiple RTI applications pertains to multiple old issues and is unspecific, voluminous and incomprehensible in nature.
Further, Hon'ble CIC vide order no. CIC/MP/A/2016/001479 has observed that, "The appellant is using the information available to him as bank employee to get further details of matters not related to him in the grab of public interest. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging of their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing' at the cost of their normal duties"
Hon'ble CIC order dated 19.08.2019 in File No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2017/182060, the commission observed that "The appellant is habitual in seeking information through RTI applications. This will adversely affect public exchequer and the officials are Page 10 of 18 entangled in unnecessary exercise. Leaving their work to attend the hearing, adversely affecting the efficiency, effectiveness of the Bank as a whole."
Hon'ble CIC decision dated 19.12.2016, File No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001479 observed that "The appellant is using the information available to him as bank employee to get further details of matters not related to him in the grab of public interest. He also does not appear to be serious about the information being sought as he has neither appeared through video conferencing nor in person.
The commission advised the appellant to use the rights given to him under the RTI act with full responsibility and a diligent manner in future so as not to overburden the public authority with frivolous and vexatious RTI applications which impinge on the scarce resources of the public authority and enables the public authority to use its time and resources for providing information expeditiously and efficiently".
In the view of above, we request the Hon'ble commission to close the File..."
7.1. The Respondent (PNB, Bathinda) while defending their case inter alia tendered their written submissions. For the sake of clarity, some significant parts of the written submissions of the Respondent(s) (PNB, Bathinda) are reproduced hereunder:
"...In reference to the captioned subject, the reply of RTI's have been given as per the decision of the competent authority at that time.
RTI Date of RTI Date of Date of Date of
Reply Appeal Reply
PNBNK/R/E/23/01571/1 01.07.2023 25.07.2023 27.07.2023 Disposed by
CO Fazilka
PNBNK/R/E/23/01571/4 01.07.2023 25.07.2023 27.07.2023
PNBNK/R/E/23/01571/2 01.07.2023 04.09.2024 Not received at ours
PNBNK/R/E/23/02476/1 06.10.2023 Initial reply 24.11.2023 11.12.2023
sent on
18.12.2023.
Further reply
sent on
Page 11 of 18
04.09.2024 as
orders of
commission
on
02.09.2024
PNBNK/R/E/23/01498/1 22.06.2023 25.07.2023 27.07.2023 Disposed by
CO Fazilka
PNBNK/R/E/23/01498/3 22.06.2023 04.09.2024 Not received at ours
PNBNK/R/E/23/01562 29.06.2023 25.07.2023 27.07.2023 Disposed by
CO Fazilka
Further, we may add that information sought in the multiple RTI application pertains to multiple old issues and is unspecific, voluminous and incomprehensible in nature. The appellant/complainant has been raising such RTIs from many years and CIC have issued instructions multiple times to appellant/complainant to use his rights under RTI Act with full responsibility and diligently. The orders passed by CIC are as follows:
Hon'ble CIC order dated 19.08.2019 in File No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2017/182060, the commission observed that "The appellant is habitual in seeking information through RTI applications. This will adversely affect public exchequer and the officials are entangled in unnecessary exercise. Leaving their work to attend the hearing, adversely affecting the efficiency, effectiveness of the Bank as a whole. The RTI's objective of bringing accountability and transparency may not be allowed to be defeated by encouraging such appellants."
Further, Hon'ble CIC vide order dated 19.12.2016 in File no. CIC/MP/A/2016/001479 has observed that. "The appellant is using the information available to him as bank employee to get further details of matters not related to him in the grab of public interest The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging of their regular duties. The threat Page 12 of 18 of penalties under the RTI act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing' at the cost of their normal duties".
Further vide same court order it is also observed that "He also does not appear to be serious about the information being sought as he has neither appeared through video conferencing nor in person.
The commission advised the appellant to use the rights given to him under the RTI act with full responsibility and a diligent manner in future so as not to overburden the public authority with frivolous and vexatious RTI applications which impinge on the scarce resources of the public authority and enables the public authority to use its time and resources for providing information expeditiously and efficiently".
In view of above, we request Honorable Commission to close the File and to advise appellant/ complainant to use his rights under RTI Act with full responsibility..."
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that concededly, the Appellant is a former employee of the Respondent Public Authority and is relentlessly filing RTI Applications and Appeals on the same subject matter. The Commission finds it pertinent to mention that 49 Second Appeals/Complaints of the Appellant were heard on the same day so that the appellant does not have to appear frequently in the hearing on different dates and his time and resource are saved besides saving him from inconvenience. Despite most of the RTI queries being unclear, and similar in nature, the Respondent has tried to answer the same. From the submissions of the Respondent and from the previous records it is noticed that more than 100 hearings of the Appellant have previously been held before the Commission and these are largely similar to the Second appeals being heard in the instant case, i.e. from the list of cases listed today and previously heard, it appears that the Appellant has been repeatedly seeking information on similar subject matters, thus using up the time and resources of the Public Authority disproportionately. Such repetitive litigation is counter- productive to the RTI regime. The findings of the Commission in the instant set of matter Page 13 of 18 largely point towards a misuse of the RTI Act being perpetuated by the Appellant over so many years. Here, the Appellant's attention is invited towards certain precedents set by the superior Courts recognizing the misuse of the RTI Act:
In ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC781, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
'39. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Sections 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and the Government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources.' In the matter of Rajni Maindiratta- Vs Directorate of Education (North West - B) [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
'8. Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto.' And, in the matter of Shail Sahni vs Sanjeev Kumar [W.P.(C) 845/2014] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
'...xxx 'This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Page 14 of 18 Act". A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law.' In the other landmark judgement in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education &Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., the Apex Court held as follows:
"...37. Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties..." Emphasis supplied The aforesaid dicta essentially proves that the misuse of RTI Act is a well-recognized problem and citizens such as the Appellant should take note that their right to information is not absolute. Under the provisions of the RTI Act, while the CPIO/PIO is obliged to facilitate free flow of information to the citizen, and it is equally incumbent upon the information seeker to not to misuse the RTI Act by flooding the public authorities with RTI Applications. The Commission is also mindful of the fact that the unenviable noble duty assigned under the RTI Act to Central Public Information Officers (CPIO) and First Appellate Authorities (FAA) by the respective Public Authorities is 'in addition to their normal duties and without any additional remuneration paid for the same' for which they Page 15 of 18 must devote extra efforts, time, and energy and if they fault, they are liable to be punished while there is no reward for doing this work.
9. The Commission notes that the Appellant has not been judicious in the use of RTI Act and has been using it as a tool to harass the Public Authority. In addition, the Appellant simply filed numerous second appeals and abstained himself to appear and contest in the hearing which shows his lackadaisical approach towards the system. The Appellant is therefore cautioned to exercise his right to information in an informed and judicious manner. The Appellant is reminded that filing the same request with the CPIO by a mere inter play of words will not change the narrative of the case which has been already decided by the Commission. He is therefore strongly advised to desist from filing repetitive RTI Applications as his future appeals/complaint on the same matter are liable to be summarily dismissed. Based on the above observation the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. The Respondents are also advised to take reference of the instant decision while dealing with any future RTI Applications of the Appellant on the same subject matter.
10. The Appeal(s) are dismissed and the Complaint(s) closed accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 05.09.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कन ल एस एस िछकारा ( रटायड )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Page 16 of 18
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
Punjab National Bank,
CPIO, Inspection & Audit Department,
Circle Office: Bathinda, Model Town,
Phase-3, Bathinda, Punjab-151001
2. The CPIO
Punjab National Bank,
CPIO, Inspection & Audit Department,
Circle Office: Fazilka, Abhor Road,
Opposite Setia Motor, Fazilka, Punjab-152123
3. Sham Sunder
Annexure of Second Appeals/Complaints
Sl. No. Second Appeal/Complaint No.
1. CIC/PNBNK/C/2023/649590
2. CIC/PNBNK/C/2023/649588
3. CIC/PNBNK/C/2023/649581
4. CIC/PNBNK/C/2023/656013
5. CIC/PNBNK/A/2023/656012
6. CIC/PNBNK/C/2023/649923
7. CIC/PNBNK/A/2023/649920
8. CIC/PNBNK/A/2023/649928
9. CIC/PNBNK/C/2023/649925
10. CIC/PNBNK/A/2023/649591
11. CIC/PNBNK/A/2023/649587
12. CIC/PNBNK/A/2023/649577
13. CIC/PNBNK/C/2023/645776
14. CIC/PNBNK/A/2023/645774
Page 17 of 18
RTI Date of RTI Date of Date of Date of
Reply Appeal Reply
PNBNK/R/E/23/01571/1 01.07.2023 25.07.2023 27.07.2023 Disposed by
CO Fazilka
PNBNK/R/E/23/01571/4 01.07.2023 25.07.2023 27.07.2023
PNBNK/R/E/23/01571/2 01.07.2023 04.09.2024 Not received at ours
PNBNK/R/E/23/02476/1 06.10.2023 Initial reply 24.11.2023 11.12.2023
sent on
18.12.2023.
Further reply
sent on
04.09.2024 as
orders of
commission
on
02.09.2024
PNBNK/R/E/23/01498/1 22.06.2023 25.07.2023 27.07.2023 Disposed by
CO Fazilka
PNBNK/R/E/23/01498/3 22.06.2023 04.09.2024 Not received at ours
PNBNK/R/E/23/01562 29.06.2023 25.07.2023 27.07.2023 Disposed by
CO Fazilka
Page 18 of 18
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)