Central Information Commission
Ramesh Chandra Tiwari vs Punjab National Bank on 30 April, 2020
Author: Suresh Chandra
Bench: Suresh Chandra
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. CIC/PNBNK/A/2018/127003
Ramesh Chandra Tiwari ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, Punjab National Bank,
Pune. ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 30.12.2017 FA : 23.01.2018 SA : 24.04.2018
CPIO : 30.12.2017 FAO : 16.02.2018 Hearing : 23.04.2020
ORDER
(27.04.2020)
1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 24.04.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 30.12.2017 and first appeal dated 23.01.2018:-
• Photo copy of the Information submitted by office to Reserve Bank of India as mandated by the apex bank for "classification and reporting of fraud accounts" in respect of the term loan account Excel Solpur Kasturba Market.Page 1 of 4
The date of classifying this term loan account as a fraud account and date of reporting to Reserve Bank of India of it's of reporting to Reserve Bank of India of its occurrence a fraud account.
• The period to which the information relates on 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012. Date of classification and reporting to Reserve Bank of India about the Information preferably generated through your software LADDER, classifying the term loan account M/s Excel Krushi Prakriya Limited as fraud account during the financial year 2011-12.
2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 30.12.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, Pune, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 30.12.2017. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 23.01.2018. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 16.02.2018. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 24.04.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.
3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 24.04.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the respondent had deliberately denied the information. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information to him.
4. The CPIO vide letter dated 30.12.2017 denied the information under section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act. The FAA upheld the decision taken by the CPIO.
5. The appellant did not provide any contact details in his RTI application dn appeals, hence, could not be contacted. On behalf of the respondent, Ms.Mitul Gupta, Law Officer, Punjab National Bank, Pune attended the hearing through audio conference.Page 2 of 4
5.1. The respondent while defending their reply given vide their letter dated 13-10- 2017 and the First Appellate Authority's order dated 16-02-2018 reiterated their stand resorting to exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The respondent also brought to the notice of the Commission that the appellant was an employee of the bank and a departmental enquiry was conducted against him and based on the finding of the enquiry committee, the appellant was dismissed from service.
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records feels that the appellant has filed the RTI application seeking the documents which were exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Moreover, there were set procedures laid down for procuring various documents in accordance with the rules of departmental enquiry. The Supreme Court had also held that when a procedure is provided for procuring the documents, the appellant cannot use the RTI Act as a tool to gather certain information/documents. Moreover, the respondent had already claimed exemption under Section 8(1)((j) of RTI Act, there appears to be no public interest in further prolonging the matter or substituting the wisdom the respondent. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ाा)) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 27.04.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:
1. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR 9 MOLEDINA ROAD,HOTEL AURORA TOWERS,CAMP PUNE-41 1OO1
2. RAMESH CHANDM TIWARI Page 4 of 4