Central Information Commission
Tejinder Chawla vs Punjab & Sind Bank on 12 February, 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. CIC/PASBK/A/2022/129895
Tejinder Chawla ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Punjab & Sind Bank
New Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 09.03.2022 FA : 27.04.2022 SA : 16.06.2022
CPIO : 06.04.2022 FAO : 25.05.2022 Hearing : 08.02.2024
Date of Decision: 08.02.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.03.2022 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Provide details of ATM cash cassettes purchased for replacing old cassettes since 2019.
(ii) Provide details ATM cash cassettes used out of above by the bank/branches.
(iii) Provide details for amount spend by the bank for purchase of ATM cash cassettes.
(iv) Provide the name of vendor/company from which ATM cash cassettes purchased.
(v) Provide details of uses of unused ATM cash cassettes.Page 1 of 3
(i) Provide details of action against liable official/ dept. for mishandling of replacing/purchasing/wasting ATM cassettes.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 06.04.2022 and the same is reproduced as under :-
(i) Bank has procured ATM cash cassettes for 1090 ATMs for replacement of old cassettes.
(ii) ATM cash cassettes used in all 1090 ATMs.
(iii) Rs. 19.80 Crore + Taxes.
(iv) Purchased from Bank's empanelled ATM vendors, which are as follows:
(1) M/s AGS Transact Technologies Pvt Ltd. (2) Diebold Nixdorf Ltd.
(3) LIPI Data Systems Ltd.
(4) M/s Vortex Engineering Private Limited.
(v) Unused ATM cash cassettes are kept in safe custody of branches.
(vi) Nil.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.04.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 25.05.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 16.06.2022.
5. The appellant was present at the VC venue and on behalf of the respondent S K Suman alongwith Ashish Duhan attended the hearing in person.
6. The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO on points no. 1, 2 & 5 of the RTI application as correct information was not supplied.Page 2 of 3
7. The respondent while defending their case submitted that an appropriate, point-
wise reply was given to the appellant on 06.04.2022.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observed that even though on points no. 1, 2 & 5 some information was given to the appellant, however, the information given was not specific to the points raised by the appellant. The CPIO is therefore, directed to re-visit the RTI application on these points and provide the specific information, as per the records available with them, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
9. With the above observations, the Appeal is disposed of.
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: 08.02.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड )) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1.The CPIO Punjab & Sind Bank, Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, Head Office : New Delhi, NBCC Office Complex, Plate - B, Block - 3, East Kidwai Nagar New Delhi - 110023
2. Tejinder Chawla Page 3 of 3