S K Kardam vs Punjab National Bank on 22 January, 2021

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

S K Kardam vs Punjab National Bank on 22 January, 2021

1. The issues under consideration i.e., the reliefs sought by the complainant in his complaint dated 31.10.2018 due to alleged non-supply of information vide his RTI application dated 02.04.2018 are as under:-

 Appropriate action be initiated against the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the complainant filed an application dated 02.04.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Page 1 of 5 Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, Head Office, Dwarka, New Delhi, seeking following information:

i. Provide the marks obtained by the complainant in written test, interview and group discussion for the promotion of Scale IV to Scale V for 2018-19. ii. Copy of interview evaluation sheet for the promotion process 2018. iii. Copy of group discussion evaluation sheet for the promotion process 2018. iv. Provide cut off marks of the last selected candidate for the year 2018. v. Provide the details of year wise number of vacancies, empaneled candidates, wait list candidates and selected candidates for the year 2015. vi. Providethe details of the year wise number of vacancies, empaneled candidates, wait list candidates and selected candidates for the year 2016. vii. Provide the details of year wise number of vacancies, empaneled candidates, wait list candidates and selected candidates for the year 2017. viii. Provide the details of year wise number of vacancies, empaneled candidates, wait list candidates and selected candidates for the year 2018. ix. Provide the marks obtained in written test, interview and group discussion by the approved, empanelled and waitlisted candidates for the year 2015. x. Provide the marks obtained in written test, interview and group discussion by the approved, empanelled and waitlisted candidates for 2016. xi. Provide the marks obtained in written test, interview and group discussion by the approved, empanelled and waitlisted candidates for 2017. xii. Provide the marks obtained in written test, interview and group discussion by the approved, empanelled and waitlisted candidates for 2018.

The CPIO vide letter dated 05.05.2018 replied to the complainant. Dissatisfied with this, the complainant filed first appeal dated 11.05.2018. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 29.08.2018 disposed of the first appeal.

Page 2 of 5

3. The complainant has filed the instant complaint dated 31.10.2018 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO and the FAA was incomplete. The complainant 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, vide letter dated 05.05.2018, gave point-wise reply/information and denied the information against point nos. 2, 3 & 9 to 12 of the RTI application on the ground of third-party information, held by the bank in fiduciary capacity, hence, it was exempted under section 8 (1) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act. The CPIO further stated that information sought on point nos. 5, 6 & 8 of the RTI application was already available in their HRMS and moreover this information had already been provided to the complainant 24.08.2017. The FAA vide order dated 29.08.2018 gave revised point-wise reply/information to the complainant.

5. The complainant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Ranjit Singh, Chief Manager and Shri Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Delhi, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The complainant inter alia submitted that reply given by the respondent was incomplete as information sought on point nos. 2 to 4 and 9 to 11 of the RTI application was not provided. He further submitted that the then CPIO informed that some of the information sought was available in the HRMS. However, the information sought was uploaded in the HRMS after 4 months from the declaration of result. Besides, he contended that information provided by the CPIO up to the year 2017 and information related to the promotion of Scale IV to Scale V for 2018-19 was not provided. Hence, he requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the complete information on point nos. 2 to 4 and 9 to 11 of the RTI application.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had already furnished point-wise reply to the complainant vide their letter dated 05.05.2018. However, being dissatisfied with the CPIO's reply, the complainant filed first appeal and the FAA vide order dated 29.08.2018 provided revised reply/information to the Page 3 of 5 complainant. Moreover, the respondent stated that year-wise number of empaneled candidates, waitlist candidates and selected candidates for the years 2015 to 2017 was already available in HRMS which could be accessed by every employee.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observes that the complaint sought information related to the promotions of Scale IV to Scale V which was held in the years 2015 to 2018. Perusal of the record further reveals that the CPIO had given point-wise reply/information vide their letters dated 05.05.2018 and 29.08.2018. Besides, the respondent during the course of hearing submitted that year-wise number of empanelled candidates, waitlist candidates and selected candidates for the years 2015 to 2017 was available in HRMS which could be accessed by every employee. There appears to be no mala fide on the part of the respondent in responding to the RTI application. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 28.10.2013 J.K. Mittal vs. Central Information Commission and Anr. [W.P.(C) No. 6755/2012] observed as under:

"....there can be no dispute that while considering a complaint made under Section 18 of the Act, the Commission cannot direct the concerned CPIO to provide the information which the complainant had sought from him. Such a power can only be exercised when a Second Appeal in terms of Sub section (3) of Section 19 is preferred before the Commissioner."

In view of the above, the Commission finds no merit in the complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed.

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

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेशचं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) दनांक/Date: 22.01.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत ) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Head Office(MARD), 2nd Floor, East Block, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110008 THE F.A.A, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, HeadOffice(MARD), 2ndFloor, East Block, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi -110008 S K Kardam Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission