Harish Chand Sharma vs Punjab National Bank on 19 May, 2020

[Cites 3, Cited by 1]

Central Information Commission

Harish Chand Sharma vs Punjab National Bank on 19 May, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 05.12.2017 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 15.05.2017 and first appeal dated 25.08.2017:

(i) खाता नं० #######1830 के अ तगत अं कत शमा क Education Loan के लए कतनी धनरा श वीकृ त क गयी थी I

(ii) उ त धनरा श म से ! तवष कतनी- कतनी अदा क गयी I Page 1 of 5

(iii) ! त वष आपके 'वारा अदा धनरा श पर कतनी- कतनी धनरा श (याज के *प म वसूल, गयी I

(iv) भारत सरकार के नयमानुसार (याज के छूट के अ तगत ! तवष (याज पर कतनी-

कतनी छूट 1द गयी इसका 3यौरा उपल(ध कराये I

(v) या (याज पर छूट दे ने के नयम5 के अ तगत भारत सरकार के नयम5 का पूणतथा:

पालन कया गया था I

(vi) कस 1दनांक को श8ा ऋण का पूण भुगतान कर कया गया था I

(vii) कस 1दनांक को आपके 'वारा No Dues Certificate 1दया गया था I

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 15.05.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 07.07.2017. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 25.08.2017. The First Appellate Authority did not pass any order. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 05.12.2017 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 05.12.2017 inter alia on the grounds that the FAA did not respond to the first appeal filed by the appellant. The appellant requested the Commission to provide the correct and proper information in serial order and impose a penalty of Rs. 25000 on the CPIO or the FAA.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 07.07.2017 replied that the account has been closed. It was further informed that all the rules related to loans and interest has been complied with. The FAA did not pass any order.

Hearing on 17.07.2019:

4.1. The appellant attended the hearing in person and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Anurag Singh, Senior Manager(Law), Punjab National Bank, Lucknow attended the hearing through video conference.

Page 2 of 5 4.2. The Commission passed the following directions on 18.07.2019:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, feels that reply given by the respondent is vague. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant had sought information on seven points whereas the respondent had provided only the statement of the aforesaid education loan account. Perusal of the records reveals that the respondent had casually replied to the RTI application without application of proper mind. The Commission, therefore, directs the Registry of this Bench to issue a Show Cause Notice to Shri H.K. Juneja, the CPIO & Chief Manager and Shri Ashok Mishra, the then CPIO, Punjab National Bank, Circle office, Lucknow for explaining as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against each of them. All the written explanations may reach to this Commission within 15 days.

6.1. The respondent is further directed to provide a point-wise reply to the RTI application as per the provisions of the RTI Act, within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order."

Hearing on 13.05.2020:

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Harish Juneja, Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Lucknow attended the hearing through audio conference.

5.1. The appellant submitted that he had not received the reply given by the respondent as brought out by the CPIO during the hearing. The appellant further submitted that he had informed his new address post-retirement and perhaps the respondent has addressed the reply to his old address. The appellant provided his new address details again and the email address and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to email him the reply at the earliest.

5.2. The respondent Shri H.K. Juneja, CPIO, submitted that the appellant had requested information relating to his education loan accounts and the interest charged therein. The appellant was provided detailed point-wise information relating to the two kinds of interests charged, the moratorium period as per the loan agreement and the subsidy amount (Rs. 4,265/-), etc. vide letter dated 31.07.2019. The respondent Page 3 of 5 submitted that the matter came into his knowledge upon receipt of the hearing notice and it was not tenable to dispose the application and take necessary steps within 7 days. However, they had complied with the Commission's directions and there was no action pending on their part. The respondent also endorsed the written explanation submitted by Shri Ashok Mishra who had explained that the reply had been given within 30 days of receipt of RTI application on the basis of information available with them. The statement had been earlier made available to the appellant but the details were later fetched/drawn with the help of experts and complete information was furnished to the appellant. The respondent assured that they were law abiding citizens and had highest regard for the provisions of RTI Act and assured that no such lapse on technical grounds would occur in future.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, feels that the respondent have complied with the Commission's directions and furnished complete information vide letter dated 31.07.2019. However, the appellant has not received the communication due to change of address. Non receipt of the information might not be attributed to the respondent. The parties have exchanged contact details during the hearing and copy of the letter may be sent to the appellant vide email. The letter dated 31.07.2019 addressed to the appellant has been placed on the Commission's records and it establishes the compliance of the Commission's order dated 18.07.2019. The explanations furnished by the respondent are found reasonable and satisfactory. In absence of mala fide on the part of CPIOs, it would not be appropriate to take action under provisions of section 20 of RTI Act. Therefore, the show cause notices against Shri H.K. Juneja, and Shri Ashok Mishra, are dropped. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) ा) Information Commissioner (सूसूचना आयु ) दनांक/ Date: 18.05.2020 Authenticated true copy Page 4 of 5 (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (R. Sitarama Murthy) (आर. सीताराम मू त) Deputy Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES:

CPIO :

1. Sh. H.K. JUNEJA (C.P.I.O) PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, Circle Office, 4, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow -10

2. Sh. H.K. JUNEJA (C.P.I.O) PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, Circle Office, 4, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow -10 (For forwarding to Sh.Ashok Mishra - the then C.P.I.O) HARISH CHAND SHARMA Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission