Central Information Commission
Sham Sunder vs Punjab National Bank on 20 December, 2016
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Case Nos. CIC/MP/A/2016/000599, CIC/MP/A/2016/000893, CIC/MP/A/2016/000859,
CIC/MP/A/2016/000892, CIC/MP/A/2016/001402 & CIC/MP/A/2016/001479
Appellant : Shri Sham Sunder, Faridkot,
Public Authority : Punjab National Bank, Bhatinda/New Delhi.
Date of Hearing : 11th November, 2016
Date of Decision : 19th December, 2016.
Present
Appellant : Not present.
Respondent : Shri Sunil Dutt, Chief Manager through VC.
Information Commissioner : Manjula Prasher
ORDER
CIC/MP/A/2016/000599 & CIC/MP/A/2016/000893:
RTI application : 15.11.2015
CPIO's reply : 17.12.2015
First Appeal : 30.12.2015
FAA's order : 30.01.2016
Second appeal : 18.02.2016
1. The appellant, Shri Sham Sunder, submitted RTI application before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, Bhatinda seeking information with reference to letter dated 16.10.15 of BO Guruharsahai CIC/MP/A/2016/000599, CIC/MP/A/2016/000893, CIC/MP/A/2016/000859, 1 CIC/MP/A/2016/000892, CIC/MP/A/2016/001402 & CIC/MP/A/2016/001479 addressed to Circle Head, PNB, Bhatinda regarding the date of lodging claim of advance subsidy, the date of lodging the claim mentioned and sought the date in respect of all the seven accounts on which the claim was forwarded to the DMI/NABARD; copy of guidelines on the basis of which the rent on the godown could be collected in the escrow account; copy of IT Section asking the branch to convert the account from PI category to IB category in respect of account mentioned at point 1; copy of record on the basis of which the additional loan was sanctioned in all the seven accounts; copy of instruction of the IT section asking the branch to convert the account at S. No. 2 into 5 accounts, account at S. No. 3 from PI into 1 account of IB and then one account of IB into 4 account of IB etc; in account number 2 date of sanction was 3.11.2011 and the account opened date was 21.09.2011 and sought copy of confirmation of the action of the CM before the sanction; copy of guidelines under which the subsidy of Rs. 83.98 crores was claimed and received; the category under which the subsidy claimed i.e. women, agriculturist etc; copy of letter dated 16.10.2015; copy of bank instructions empowering the authority to convert the loan account into multiple accounts; copy of record on the basis of which the project report had been bifurcated to arrive at for opening multiple accounts; the designation of the authority at Circle Office, Bhatinda who had signed the forwarding of the subsidy claim to DMI/NABARD etc. through twelve points.
1.1. The CPIO provided information on points 1, 2, 7 and denied information on points 4, 6, 8, 10 and 11 u/s 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) and Section 7(9) of the RTI Act and intimated that information sought on points 3,5 and 9 was not available. Dissatisfied with the decision of the CPIO, the appellant approached the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 30.01.2016 upheld the decision of the CPIO.
1.2. Thereafter dissatisfied with the decision of the respondents, the appellant filed the two identical appeals before the Commission stating that information sought was neither of commercial confidence nor personal. He sought the copy CIC/MP/A/2016/000599, CIC/MP/A/2016/000893, CIC/MP/A/2016/000859, 2 CIC/MP/A/2016/000892, CIC/MP/A/2016/001402 & CIC/MP/A/2016/001479 of the record through which the loan was bifurcated into multiple loans to avail excess subsidy from the exchequer and the disclosure of which was in public interest.
1.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant was not present in spite of a notice of hearing having been sent to him. However, the appellant vide his e-mail dated 4.11.2016 that the information on points 4, 6,7, 8, 10 and 11 was denied under the provisions of Section 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The respondents stated that the appellant sought information at point 4 copy of the record on the basis of which the additional loan was sanctioned in seven accounts of Sukhbir Agro Energy Ltd pertained to third party information which was held by the bank in commercial confidence and fiduciary capacity and denied u/s 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act. On point 6 the appellant sought copy of confirmation of the action of the Chef Manager before the sanction of loan to the firm, which was also denied u/s 8(1)(d), (e) of the RTI Act. On point 7 the appellant sought guidelines under which the subsidy of Rs. 73.98 crores was claimed and received and its date of submission of project in advance by the party to DMI/NABARD. They stated that PUNGRAN a nodal agency of FCI had floated tenders under PEG (Private Entrepreneur Godowns) Scheme for construction of godowns by the private parties for taking godowns on lease under 10 years guarantee scheme and tenders were allotted to the parties cordoning to the provisions/stipulations of the tenders. The Capital Investment Subsidy was given by the Central Government for Construction of Rural Godowns through NABARD only. The joint inspection of godowns was conducted by the officials of PNB, NABARD. The subsidy was claimed and received as per bank's guidelines from time to time. Moreover, the information pertained to commercial confidence and hence exempt u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. On point 8 the appellant sought category under which the subsidy claimed i.e. women agriculturist etc. They stated that the capital investment subsidy was given by Central Government for construction of rural godowns under Central Sector Scheme, which was provided through NABARD only for construction of rural godowns. The collation and CIC/MP/A/2016/000599, CIC/MP/A/2016/000893, CIC/MP/A/2016/000859, 3 CIC/MP/A/2016/000892, CIC/MP/A/2016/001402 & CIC/MP/A/2016/001479 compilation of such information would disproportionately divert the resources of the bank. Moreover, the information sought pertained to commercial confidence and could not be provided u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. On point 10 the appellant sought copy of bank instructions empowering the authority to convert the loan into multiple accounts etc, which also pertained to commercial confidence and cannot be provided u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. The appellant sought copy of the record on the basis of which the project report had been bifurcated to arrive at for opening of multiple accounts through point 11, which also involved to commercial confidence and could not be provided u/s 8(1)(d), (e) of the RTI Act,2005. They further added that the appellant was posted as Sr. Manager of PNB as District Coordinator at Faridkot and had filed multiple RTI applications on various issues.
1.4. The Commission observes that the appellant had sought information on sweeping queries through single RTI application. The Commission accepts the submissions of the respondents and holds that the information sought by the appellant on points 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 cannot be provided under the provisions of Section 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act, which involves commercial confidence and its disclosure can affect the competitive position of the bank and was held by the respondents in fiduciary capacity and no larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information to the appellant. The Commission finds no reason to interfere in the decision of the respondent authority and upholds the decision of the FAA. The Commission The appeal is disposed of.
CIC/MP/A/2016/000859 & CIC/MP/A/2016/000892:
RTI application : 26.11.2015
CPIO's reply : 28.12.2015
First Appeal : 30.12.2015
FAA's order : 30.01.2016
Second appeal : 18.02.2016
2. The appellant, Shri Sham Sunder, submitted RTI application before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, Bhatinda CIC/MP/A/2016/000599, CIC/MP/A/2016/000893, CIC/MP/A/2016/000859, 4 CIC/MP/A/2016/000892, CIC/MP/A/2016/001402 & CIC/MP/A/2016/001479 seeking complete record of detection of undercharges of several amounts in respect of BO Guruharsahai till its final disposal including the staff side case (initiation and final disposal) if any; complete record along with rules and regulations of the bank (under which Ms. Monika was appointed firstly at RSD College Firozepur and then to BO BG Firozepur) in respect of appointment of Ms. Monika PTS at BG Firozepur previously at RSD College Firozepur; copy of rules and regulations depicting therein that a term loan account could be bifurcated into various accounts after a lapse of more than one year; copy of the bank/Govt/RBI guidelines/rules empowering the bank authority to claim subsidy for the customer in the cases in which the tender calling for the constructions of the godown did not contain the provision of entitlement of subsidy in the project; etc. through seven points.
2.1. The CPIO provided information to the appellant on points 4, 5, 6 and 7 and denied information on points 1 and 2 u/s 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) and informed that the information sought on point 3 was not specific. Dissatisfied with the decision of the CPIO, the appellant approached the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 30.01.2016 upheld the decision of the CPIO.
2.2. Thereafter dissatisfied with the decision of the respondents, the appellant filed the two identical appeals before the Commission stating that information sought was neither of commercial confidence nor personal. The copy of the rules and regulations by which the loan could be bifurcated was also denied on the grounds that the information sought was not specific.
2.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant was not present in spite of a notice of hearing having been sent to him. However, the appellant vide his e-mail dated 4.11.2016 stated that the information as sought on points 1, 2 was denied by the CPIO u/s 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act. On point the 3 information was denied on the ground that no specific information was sought, whereas the information sought was about copy of the rules and regulations which was a specific one. The information on points 4, 5 and 6 provided was CIC/MP/A/2016/000599, CIC/MP/A/2016/000893, CIC/MP/A/2016/000859, 5 CIC/MP/A/2016/000892, CIC/MP/A/2016/001402 & CIC/MP/A/2016/001479 different from the one asked for and information on point 7 was not provided as actually sought for. The respondents stated that the information sought by the appellant on point 1 relating to complete record of detection of undercharges of Rs. 12148907/- dated 31.03.2013, Rs. 558725/- dated 30.09.2013 and Rs. 163531 in respect of BO: Guruharsahai pertained to commercial confidence and was exempt u/s 8(1)(d) and (e) & (j) of the RTI Act and no specific information was sought by the appellant; on Point 2 as the appellant sought complete record along with rules and regulations of the bank (under which Ms. Monika was appointed firstly at RSD College, Ferozepur), which was denied to the appellant being third party information under the provisions of Section 8(1)(e) (j) of the RTI Act. On point 3 the appellant sought copy of rules and regulations depicting therein that a term loan account can be bifurcated into various accounts after a lapse of more than one year, which was not specific. The points 4, 5 & 6 related to copy of bank/Govt/RBI guidelines/rules empowering the bank authority to claim subsidy for the customer in the cases in which the tender calling for the construction of godown did not contain the provision of entitlement of subsidy with project etc, They stated that PUNGRAN a nodal agency of FCI had floated tenders under PEG (Private Entrepreneur Godowns) Scheme for construction of godowns by the private parties for taking godowns on lease under 10 years guarantee scheme and tenders were allotted to the parties cordoning to the provisions/stipulations of the tenders. The Capital Investment Subsidy was given by the Central Government for Construction of Rural Godowns through NABARD only. The joint inspection of godowns was conducted by the officials of PNB, NABARD. The subsidy was claimed and received as per bank's guidelines from time to time. On point 7 the respondents stated that no separate record of waiver of conditions of CLU was available and no separate record of parking area was available.
2.4. The contention putforth by the appellant in his second appeal is without any merit, as the appellant is an employee and working as a senior level officer of the PNB and is supposed the know and has access to the rules and CIC/MP/A/2016/000599, CIC/MP/A/2016/000893, CIC/MP/A/2016/000859, 6 CIC/MP/A/2016/000892, CIC/MP/A/2016/001402 & CIC/MP/A/2016/001479 regulations for sanction of loans, working of the PNB etc. yet he has filed multiple RTI applications, making queries and desiring to ask information on a sweeping range of issues. Moreover, he did not appear for hearing whenever his appeals were listed. It seems that the appellant is not interested in getting information and is only interested in making RTI applications without any serious interest of seeking information. The Commission observes that the CPIO had provided information as permissible and disclosable under the RTI Act, within the stipulated period. The appeal is disposed of.
CIC/MP/A/2016/001402:
Respondent : Shri S.K. Sharma, ACPIO, Shri Anoop Arora, Chief Manager, Shri N.K. Mehta and Shri R.C. Jaideep at CIC.
RTI application : 03.03.2016 CPIO's reply : 02.04.2016 First appeal : 16.04.2016 FAA's order : 26.05.2016 Second appeal : 06.06.2016
3. The appellant, Shri Sham Sunder, submitted RTI application before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, MARD, New Delhi stating that as per decision of the CIC in case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/00520 the bank had provided copy of the record vide which appointment of Director of FTC Mehraj, log book of vehicle provided to the FTC Mehraj, expenditure incurred on vehicle, TA bill of Director FTC Mehraj; month-wise detail of expenditure incurred on diesel and that even though the copy of TA bill of director was provided but the copy of guidelines by which the Diem allowance paid was not provided; detail of reimbursement of conveyance for using own vehicle to the FTC director made since inception was not provided along with record of the claim, copy of guidelines vide which the FTC director could be appointed after attaining the age of 65 years, copy of guidelines vide which the CIC/MP/A/2016/000599, CIC/MP/A/2016/000893, CIC/MP/A/2016/000859, 7 CIC/MP/A/2016/000892, CIC/MP/A/2016/001402 & CIC/MP/A/2016/001479 conveyance allowance was reimbursed for use of own vehicle to the FTC director, copy of complete record of disposal of grievance lodged under samadhan; copy of guidelines vide which the bank was empowered to hand over the customer information to the vendor for preparing the information asked by the income tax department for filing TDS return on deposit; etc. through nine points.
3.1. The CPIO informed the appellant that the information sought at point 1 was not in line with the orders of the Commission, provided information on points 2 and 4. He denied information by invoking the provisions of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act on points 3, 7 and 9, and transferred points 5 and 6 to the CPIO, PNB, CO, Udaipur and denied information on point 8 u/s 8(1)(d), (e), (h) and (j) of the RTI Act. Dissatisfied with the decision of the CPIO, the appellant approached the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 24.05.2016 upheld the decision of the CPIO.
3.2. Thereafter dissatisfied with the decision of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission for not providing satisfactory information on points 1, 2, 4, 5, 8 and 9 of the RTI application.
3.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant was not present in spite of a notice of hearing having been sent to him. The respondents stated that the appellant had clubbed the issue of another RTI application in the present RTI application. They reiterated that information as per record available and disclosable had been provided to the appellant on all the points, except points 5 and 6, which were transferred to the CPIO, PNB, Udaipur.
3.4. Having considered the submissions of the respondents, the Commission observes that the appellant instead of filing non-compliance of the Commission's order in case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/00520, had filed the present RTI application by clubbing the issues raised in his earlier RTI application. The Commission holds that CPIO had appropriately responded to the appellant. The Commission upholds the decision of the FAA. The appeal is disposed of.
CIC/MP/A/2016/000599, CIC/MP/A/2016/000893, CIC/MP/A/2016/000859, 8 CIC/MP/A/2016/000892, CIC/MP/A/2016/001402 & CIC/MP/A/2016/001479 Case No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001479:
RTI application : 13.03.2015 CPIO's reply : 24.04.2015 First appeal : 04.05.2015 FAA's order : 15.06.2015 Second appeal : 26.06.2015
4. The appellant, Shri Sham Sunder, submitted RTI application before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, MARD, New Delhi stating that his PF No. 30513 in the Samadhan Scheme of the bank were disposed of by releasing the salary for 26.01.2012 and sought complete record of deduction of salary for 26.01.2012, copy of submissions under Samadhan Scheme, complete record of disposal of his submissions along with noting done on his submissions, if any; Rs. 9075/- was shown as incentive paid in his salary slip of November 2012, but the same had not been paid so far and sought record/guidelines empowering the authority for not paying the amount; CO, North Delhi responded CVO letter dated 16.7.2010 vide letter dated 2.9.2010 and sought record of the final disposal of letter received from the CO North by the CVO; record of final disposal of CVO letter No. VS/DZ/Misc. 10/1666 dated 8.6.2010 by CVO. Vide MARD letter No. MARD/RTI/789/2014 dated 2.3.2015 the Office had provided him copy of noting at S. No. 19; sought copy of the justification to deviation made by the CO submitted to the HRDD by CO, Bhatinda as per HRDD circular No. 12/2008; copy of justification to the deviation made by the CO in transferring PF No. 30513 from Faridkot to Guruharshai and then from Guruharsahai to Firozepur back office; latest report about the fraud reported in refund of TDS deducted on interest to the CVO; etc. through twenty three points.
4.1. The CPIO informed the appellant that he had raised the similar or slightly altered issues repeatedly which had been provided vide various communications on points 1 and 2; the information was denied on points 3 to 10, 11, 13, 15, 17 to 21 by invoking the provisions of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act; the interest CIC/MP/A/2016/000599, CIC/MP/A/2016/000893, CIC/MP/A/2016/000859, 9 CIC/MP/A/2016/000892, CIC/MP/A/2016/001402 & CIC/MP/A/2016/001479 subvention were to be calculated on crop loan amount disbursed and the circular was available on the website of RBI on point 12; on point 14 the appellant was informed that the guidelines of KCC were as per guidelines issued by the RBI, which were available on the website of the RBI and on point 22 the CPIO stated that no such record was maintained . Dissatisfied with the decision of the CPIO, the appellant approached the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 11.06.2015 upheld the decision of the CPIO.
4.2. Thereafter dissatisfied with the decision of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission.
4.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant was not present in spite of a notice of hearing having been sent to him. The respondents stated that the appellant's similar appeal in case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/001718 had already been decided by the Commission vide its order dated 28.04.2016. They further added in response to point 5 that earlier the appellant was awarded major penalty and later converted into minor penalty. The CO, Udaipur Office had already informed to the appellant, the information sought on point 8 pertained to third party; and on point 9 no specific information was sought by the appellant, The appellant had not enclosed copy of the complaint.
4.4. Having considered the submissions of the respondents, the Commission observes that the respondent authority had appropriately responded to the appellant. Moreover, the appellant's similar appeal had been already decided by the Commission in case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/001718 vide its order dated 28.4.2016. The Commission, however, directs the CPIO to provide copy of letter intimating the appellant about the minor penalty in response to point 5 of the RTI application, to the appellant within ten days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
5. The Commission observes that the appellant is using the information available to him as bank employee to get further details of matters not related to CIC/MP/A/2016/000599, CIC/MP/A/2016/000893, CIC/MP/A/2016/000859, 10 CIC/MP/A/2016/000892, CIC/MP/A/2016/001402 & CIC/MP/A/2016/001479 him in the garb 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. On earlier occasions too the appellant's more than 30 appeals were heard by the Commission, but he did not appear for hearing. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aditya Bandopadhyay had observed that "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. 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 and regular duties." The Commission advises the appellant to use the rights given to him under the RTI Act with full responsibility and in 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.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Deputy Registrar CIC/MP/A/2016/000599, CIC/MP/A/2016/000893, CIC/MP/A/2016/000859, 11 CIC/MP/A/2016/000892, CIC/MP/A/2016/001402 & CIC/MP/A/2016/001479 Address of the parties:
Shri Sham Sunder, The Central Public Information Officer, C-85, New Cantt Road, Punjab National Bank, Faridkot. Management Audit & Review Division, Rajendra Bhawan, Rajendra Place, HO, New Delhi-110008 The Central Public Information Officer, The GM/FAA, Punjab National Bank, Punjab National Bank, Inspection & Audit Department, Management Audit & Review Division, Circle Office, SCO 29-31, Model Town, Rajendra Bhawan, Rajendra Place, Phase-I, Bhatinda. HO, New Delhi-110008 The Circle Head/FAA, Punjab National Bank, Inspection & Audit Department, Circle Office, SCO 29-31, Model Town, Phase-I, Bhatinda.
CIC/MP/A/2016/000599, CIC/MP/A/2016/000893, CIC/MP/A/2016/000859, 12 CIC/MP/A/2016/000892, CIC/MP/A/2016/001402 & CIC/MP/A/2016/001479