Binapani Pradhan vs Punjab National Bank on 9 June, 2022

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Binapani Pradhan vs Punjab National Bank on 9 June, 2022

1. The issue under consideration i.e. the reliefs sought by the complainant in the complaint dated 12.03.2020 due to alleged non-supply of information vide RTI application dated 29.07.2019 are as under:-

Impose maximum penalty on the concerned CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the complainant filed an application dated 29.07.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank (Erstwhile United Bank of India), Medinipur, seeking following information:

Page 1 of 3

Supply of information in relation to Loan Account No. **********956 at the Marisda Branch.

(i) Whether the aforesaid loan was disbursed through Demand Draft, Cheque and/or Cash Receipt?

(ii) If the answer to the aforesaid query is in affirmative, then provide him the copy of the same.

(iii) Whether the aforesaid loan was disbursed through credited to any account?

If yes provide the details of the same.

The CPIOdid not reply to the complainant. Aggrieved with the same, the complainant filed a complaint dated 12.03.2020 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The complainant has filed the instant complaint dated 12.03.2020inter alia on the grounds that no reply was given by the respondent.

4. Perusal of the records submitted by the complainant while filing the complaint 12.03.2020 reveals that neither the CPIO nor the FAA provided any information or any reply.

5. The complainant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Saumya Kanti Roy, Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, East Midnapore, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that RTI application as well as the first appeal was not received by them. Therefore, reply was not given to the complainant.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that no reply/information was given by the respondent till the date of hearing. It may be noted that the excuse of non-availability of the material documents including the RTI application is viewed seriously by the Commission. On receipt of the hearing notice, the respondent had sufficient time and scope to access the records from the Commission's web portal or obtain the records from Page 2 of 3 the Registry of this Bench. However, the respondent has failed to do so. In view of the above and delay of over two years, Shri Soumya Kanti Roy, present CPIO and ShriShiv Prasad Kar, the then CPIO, are show caused as to why action under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act may not be initiated against each of them for not providing the information. The present CPIO is given the responsibility to serve a copy of this order upon the then CPIO and secure his written explanations as well as ensure his attendance on the next date of hearing. All written submissions (from both the CPIOs) must be uploaded on the Commission's web portal within 21 days.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 09.06.2022 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy ( आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar ( उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

The CPIO Punjab National Bank (erstwhile United Bank Of India) Vill Marisda, P O Marisda City- Contai, Distt.Purba Medinipur, West Bengal 721449 Ms Binapani Pradhan, Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission