Saradakanti Dalai vs Punjab National Bank on 1 July, 2022

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Saradakanti Dalai vs Punjab National Bank on 1 July, 2022

1. The issue under consideration i.e. the reliefs sought by the complainant in the complaint dated 18.10.2019 due to alleged non-supply of information vide RTI application dated 06.08.2019 are as under:-

Take necessary action 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 06.08.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, Bhubaneswar, seeking following information:

Page 1 of 12

(i) A sum total of how many complaints have been registered against the employee Debadatta Behera (PF -325370) by PNB customers since his joining in the Bank as per the complain register maintained at BO: Kendrapara, BO: Paikarapur?

(ii) What was the date of complain of the complainant Mr. Ranjan Kumar Kar against your employee Debadatta Behera (PF-325370) as per the record of complain register of BO: Kendrapara (498300)?

(iii) What was date of complain of the complainant Mr. Dattahari Suar against your employee Debadatta Behera (325370) as per the record of complain register of BO:

Kendrapara (498300)?

(iv) Certified copy of Office Order register of PNB, Branch Office, Paikarapur (283700) from dt: 30.06.2016 to 06.06.2018.

(v) As per the Inspection and Audit Circular of PNB, what should be the work class of an Officer?

(vi) What was the work class of your employee Debadatta Behera (PF-325370) during his posting at PNB, BO: Paikarapur (283700)?

(vii) How many times the work class of your employee Debadatta Behera (PF-325370) has been modified?

(viii) Whether any written request or consent of your employee Debadatta Behera (PF-

325370) had been received or not for such modifications at BO: Paikarapur.

(ix) What are the different dates when your employee Debadatta Behera's (PF-325370) work class has been increased from 40 to 100?

(x) What are the different dates when your employee Debadatta Behera's (PF-325370) work class has been decreased from 100 to 40?

(xi) From which date the work class of your employee Debadatta Behera (PF-325370) has been increased to 100 and thereafter never decreased.

(xii) For how many long days the work class of your employee Debadatta Behera (PF-

325370) remained at 100?

(xiii) Whether any registered was maintained or not at PNB, BO: Paikarapur (283700) for such modification of work class.

(xiv) How many non personalized cheque books were moved to your employee Debadatta Behera's (PF-325370) location in BO: Paikarapur (283700)?

Page 2 of 12

(xv) Report regarding the different cheque books moved to your employee Debadatta Behera's (PF-325370) location in BO: Paikarapur (283700). (xvi) Certified copy of inventory movement register of BO: Paikarapur (283700) since dt:

30.06.2016 to 06.06.2018.

(xvii) A sum total of how many both personalized and non personatized cheque books have been issued by your employee Debadatta Behera (PF-325370)to customers at BO:Paikarapur (283700) since dt:30.06.2016 to 06.06.2018? (xviii) Which circular of IAD allow an Officer of Bank to issue cheque Books? (xix) How many PNB Branches under Circle Office, Bhubaneswar has issued non-

personalized cheque books to an intersol account holders since dt: 01.01.2016 to 30.07.2019?

(xx) How many intersol account holders of PNB has received non-personalized cheque books from the Branches under Circle Office, Bhubaneswar since dt: 01.01.2016 to 30.07.2019?

(xxi) How many times the opening of the day has been done by your employee Debadatta Behera (PF-325370) at Bo: Paikarapur (283700) from dt: 30.06.2016 to 06.06.2018? (xxii) How many times the day end has been done by your employee Debadatta Behera (PF325370) at BO: Paikarapur (283700) from dt : 30.06.2016 to 06.06.2018 ? (xxiii) Whether any deviation and lapses register were maintained or not at BO: Paikarapur (283700) from dt: 30.06.2016 to 06.06.2018.

(xxiv) Whether any type of irregularities, lapses, deviations of your employee Debadatta Behera (PF-325370) has been recorded or not in the deviation and lapses register of BO: Paikarapur from dt : 30.06.2016 to 06.06.2018.

(xxv) Whether any type of irregularities, lapses, deviations against your employee Debadatta Behera (PF-325370) has been reported or not since dt: 30.06.2016 to 30.06.2018 to the Supervising or Controlling authorities or Circle Head of Circle Office, Bhubaneswar by BO: Paikarapur (283700).

(xxvi) Whether any Supervising Officer or Circle Head has ever verified or not the lapses or deviation register at their level of BO: Paikarapur (283700). (xxvii) How many times BO: Paikarapur (283700) has been visited by the authorities of Circle Office, Bhubaneswar since dt: 30.06.2016 to 06.06.2018?

Page 3 of 12

(xxviii) Have the visiting authorities from Circle Office, Bhubaneswar ever checked and verified the lapses and deviation register of BO: Paikarapur (283700) during their visit from dt: 30.6.2016 to 06.06.2018?

(xxix) How many times BO: Paikarapur (283700) has been audited from dt: 30.06.2016 to 06.06.2018 and by whom?

(xxx) Has any auditor has checked, verified the lapses, deviations, register of BO:

Paikarapur from dated: 30.06.2016 to 06.06.2018?

(xxxi) Whether any type of lapses, irregularities, deviation against your employee Debadatta Behera (PF-325370) of BO: Paikarapur (283700) has been reported by the Auditor from dt: 30.06.2016 to 06.06.2018?

(xxxii) Have you preserved the CCTV footage of the BO: Paikarapur (283700) of dt:

20.03.2017?

(xxxiii) Does the CCTV footage on dated 20.03.2017 clearly shows the save videos or having any error?

(xxxiv) How many times the CCTV footage on dated 20.03.2017 of BO: Paikarapur (283700) has been verified by the experts?

(xxxv) How many experts have verified the CCTV footage on dt: 20.03.2017 of BO:

Paikarapur (283700)?

(xxxvi) Whether the CCTV footage on dated 20.03.2017 of BO: Paikarapur (283700) has captured or not any image or video clips of your employee Debadatta Behera (PF-

325370) depositing Rs.200/- in account no.: ************1051 of Mahavir Cement Supply Agency.

(xxxvii) Has the CCTV footage on dated 20.03.2017 of BO: Paikarapur (283700) has been verified by the Enquiry Officer?

(xxxviii) Has the CCTV footage on dated 20.03.2017 of BO: Paikarapur (283700) has been verified by the Presenting Officer?

(xxxix) Has the cash receipt voucher of Rs.200/- deposited in account no.:

************1051 of Mahavir Cement Supply Agency on dated 20.03.2017 at BO:

Paikarapur (283700) been verified by the Enquiry Officer? (xl) Does the cash receipt voucher of Rs.200/- deposited in account no.:

************1051 of Mahavir Cement Supply Agency on dated 20.03.2017 at BO:

Page 4 of 12

Paikarapur (283700) bear the hand writing of your employee Debadatta Behera (PF- 325370)?

(xli) Does the cash receipt voucher of Rs.200/- deposited in account no.:

************1051 of Mahavir Cement Supply Agency on dated 20.03.2017 at BO:

Paikarapur (283700) bear the signature of your employee Debadatta Behera (PF-3 25370)?

(xlii) Does the cash receipt voucher of Rs.200/- deposited in account no.:

************1051 of Mahavir Cement Supply Agency on dt: 20.03.2017 at BO:

Paikarapur (283700) has been entered into computer systems by your employee Debadatta Behera (PF-325370)?

(xliii) Does the cash receipt voucher of Rs.200/- deposited in account no.:

************1051 of Mahavir Cement Supply Agency on dated 20.03.2017 at BO:

Paikarapur (283700) has been verified by your employee Debadatta Behera (PF-3 2537 0)?

(xliv) What is the basic objective of MAKER-CHECKER principle in IAD circular? (xlv) What is the proportion of liability of MAKER & CHECKER? (xlvi) Has the Enquiry Officer made enquiry on the Verifying Officer who has verified the issuance of cheque to complainant Mr. Ranjan Kumar Kar on dated 20.03.2017? (xlvii) Does the Enquiry Officer knows the real fact that why the complainant Mr. Ranjan Kumar Kar lodged complain after passing of so many months?

(xlviii) The Cheque issuance deduction charges from account no.:************1051 on dated 20.03.2017 has been deposited in which account of Bank? (xlix) Has the Enquire Officer made enquiry on the complainant Mr. Ranjan Kumar Kar?

(l) Has the Enquire Officer checked all types of PNB accounts of the complainant Mr. Ranjan Kumar Kar?

(li) How many times the complainant Mr. Ranjan Kumar Kar's all PNB account got deducted due to rejection of cheques?

(lii) As per your circular if a customer has two accounts such as one cash credit account and another current account then which account should be closed? (liii) Whether on dt: 20.03.2017 at BO: Paikarapur (283700) any exceptional report has been generated?

Page 5 of 12

(liv) Are the software in the computer systems of PNB designed as per circulars? (lv) Has the complainant Mr. Ranjan Kumar Kar been provided with ALERTS facility in his accounts?

(lvi) Is there any financial loss caused to Bank for issuing the cheque book to Mr. Ranjan Kumar Kar in his account no.:************1051?

(lvii) What was the starting date of inquiry into the complain of Mr Ranjan Kumar Kar and Mr Dattahari Suar against your employee Debadatta Behera (PF -325370)? (lviii) What was the end date of inquiry into the complain of Mr Ranjan Kumar Kar and Mr. Datta hari Suar against your employee Debadatta Behera (PF -325370)? (lix) Did Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata has been provided with CCTV footage of BO: Paikarapur (283700) of dt: 20.03.2017?

(lx) Did Central Forensic Science Laboratory,Kolkata reported in its opinion that the signature on the request application for cheque book of Mr. Ranjan Kumar Kar and cheque book received registered were made by your employee Debadatta Behera(PF- 325370)?

(lxi) Besides the opinion of Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata, whether verification of signature of Mr. Ranjan Kumar Kar on request application for cheque book and cheque book received register were sent or not to any other signature expert or any other Forensic Science Laboratory.

(lxii) What was the gap of days between the date of lodgment of complain and FIR by complainant Mr. Ranjan Kumar Kar?

(lxiii) Have you obtained the proper acknowledgement from your employee Debadatta Behera (PF-325370) regarding complain of Mr. Ranjan Kumar Kar? (lxiv) How many days it took by you to complete the enquiry on the complain by Mr. Ranjan Kumar Kar and Mr. Dattahari Suar against your employee Debadatta Behera (PF- 325370)?

(lxv) After passing of how many days since the complaint lodged by Mr Ranjan Kumar Kar and Mr. Dattahari Suar you suspended your employee Debadatta Behera (PF- 325370)?

Page 6 of 12

(lxvi) After passing of how many days since the complaint lodged by Mr Ranjan Kumar Kar and Mr. Dattahari suar, your employee Debadatta Behera (PF-325370) was charge sheeted?

(lxvii) A sum total of how many rupees have been spent by Circle Office, Bhubaneswar for completing the inquiry against your employee Debadatta Behera (PF-325370) including all cost?

(lxviii) Has the Circle Offlce, Bhubaneswar provided any legal assistance to your employee Debadatta Behera (PF-325370) to attend the summons on dt: 01.09.2017 at Salepur PS, Cuttack?

(lxix) Has the Circle Office, Bhubaneswar allowed your employee Debadatta Behera (PF-

325370) to attend the summons at Salepur PS on his personal capacity on dated 01.09.2017?

(lxx) Has the Circle Office, Bhubaneswar provided any legal assistance to your employee Debadatta Behera (PF-325370) regarding the consumer case by complainant Mr Ranjan Kumar Kar?

(lxxi) Has the Circle Office, Bhubaneswar provided any financial assistance to your employee Debadatta Behera (PF-325370) for effective participation into the departmental inquiry because his account was freezed and zero payment was made out of subsistence allowance?

(lxxii) Has the Circle Office preserved the CCTV footage on dt:11.08.2017 of Bo:

Paikarapur(283700) because your employee Debadatta Behera(PF-325370) has made a written complain in office hours against the duos i.e Mr Ranjan Kumar Kar and Mr. Dattahari Suar?

(lxxiii) After receiving the complain of your employee Debadatta Behera(PF-325370) and there after 04 reminders against Mr. Ranjan Kumar Kar and Mr Dattahari Suar, has the Circle Office,Bhubaneswar initiated any legal action against the duos or granted permission to Debatta Behera to file FIR against them?

(lxxiv) What was the date of complain of complainant Mr. Dattahari Suar against your employee Debadatta Behera (PF-325370) as per the complain register of BO:

Kendrapara (498300)?

Page 7 of 12

(lxxv) What was the date when Mr. Dattahari Suar got demand notice from Debadatta Behera (PF-325370)?

(lxxvi) Did Mr. Dattahari Suar made any complain after receiving the demand notice from Debadatta Behera (PF-325370)?

(lxxvii) Whether Mr. Dattahari Suar has ALERTS facility or not. (lxxviii) Has the Enquiry Officer checked the return memo of the cheque of amount Rs.2,20,000/- of Mr. Dattahari Suar which was not honored? (lxxix) Did the Enquiry Officer knew regarding the cause that why Mr Dattahari Suar made complain against your employee Debadatta Behera(PF-325370) after passing of so many months?

(lxxx) On the basis of which documentary evidences and expert person's report the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer reported that amount on the cheque of Mr. Dattahari Suar has been altered?

(lxxxi) On the basis of which documentary evidence the Enquiry Officer established that Debadatta Behera has financial dealings with Mr. Dattahari Suar? (lxxxii) Has the Enquiry Officer visited the BO: Kendrapara (498300) and BO: Paikarapur (283700) for the purpose of inquiry into the complains made by Mr Ranjan Kumar Kar and Mr. Dattahari Suar against Debadatta Behera (PF-325370)? (lxxxiii) Has the complains of Mr. Ranjan Kumar Kar and Mr. Dattahari suar against your employee Debadatta Behera(PF-325370) been proved by the Enquiry Officer as per the procedural guidelines established by law?

(lxxxiv) Is there any circular of PNB is available on the basis of which the authority of PNB won't give permission to appear in competitive examination to a suspended employee?

(lxxxv) Has the Circle Office, Bhubaneswar has preserved the CCTV footage of the departmental enquiry made by the Enquiry Officer at different dates in his cabin at BO: Samaj (4911)?

(lxxxvi) Is there any circular of PNB is available which allow the authority to initiate action against a bona fide employee even if the work done in good faith to a customer? (lxxxvii) CCTV footage of BO: Paikarapur (283700) of dt: 20.03.2017 and 11.08 .2017.

Page 8 of 12

(lxxxviii) How many times Mr. Dattahari Suar's cheque has been rejected in all PNB accounts?

(lxxxix) How much forgery complains has been lodged by customer against Bankers at BO:

Paikarapur (283700) since dated 01.01.2015 to 06.06.201 8? (xc) Whether Circle Office, Bhubaneswar has initiated any action for the complaint against the Bankers except Debadatta Behera (325370)?

(xci) CCTV footage of all the enquiry made in the cabin of the Enquiry Officer at BO:

Samaj (4911) on the dates i.e (a)29.01.2019,(b) 08.02.2019,(c)22.02.2019, (d) 01.03.2019 ,(e) 02.03.2019 ,(f) 07.03.2019.

The CPIO vide letter dated 19.08.2019 replied to the complainant. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant filed complaint dated 18.10.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The complainant has filed the instant complaint dated 18.10.2019 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. 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 replied vide letter dated 19.08.2019 informed that the information sought by the complainant could not be provided as the information pertained to third party.

Hearing on 02.03.2022 4.1. The complainant's representative Shri Debadatta Behera and on behalf of the respondent Shri Jagabandhu Dalai, Chief Manager & CPIO, Punjab National Bank, Bhubaneswar, attended the hearing through video conference.

4.2. The Commission passed the following directions on 25.03.2022:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the complainant sought information regarding complaints lodged against her husband Shri Debadatta Behera, an employee of the bank. The respondent had denied the information on the ground of third party information, held in trade secret and commercial confidence of the bank. It is noted that the information sought related to her husband which was Page 9 of 12 denied without following the procedure laid down under section 11 of the RTI Act. The complainant's husband Shri Debadatta Behera appeared before the Commission and submitted that he had no objection in providing the information to the complainant. It is also noted that proper reply/information was not provided even after a lapse of nearly three years from the date of filing of the RTI application. In view of the above, Shri Mahesh Chandra, the then CPIO and Shri Jagabandhu Dalai, present CPIO are Show Caused as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against each of them. The present CPIO is given a responsibility to serve a copy of this order as well as show cause notice to the then CPIO and secure his written explanations. All the written explanations (from both the CPIOs) must reach the Commission within three weeks."

Hearing on 23.06.2022

5. The complainant's representative Shri Debadatta Behera and on behalf of the respondent Shri Jagabandhu Dalai, Chief Manager & CPIO, Punjab National Bank, Bhubaneswar, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The representative of the complainant Shri Debadatta Behera inter alia submitted that the sought information by the complainant regarding the complaints made against her husband Shri Debadatta Behera (an employee of the bank) which was arbitrarily denied by the respondent. He further submitted that the case of Shri Debadatta Behera was dealt departmentally and punishment was awarded to him. He contended that since proper documents/information sought was not provided, Shri Debadatta Behera could not file an appeal before the appellate authority challenging his punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority. Further, in spite of over two years having elapsed, the respondent had not provided the requisite information.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the complainant had nowhere mentioned in her RTI application that the information pertained to her husband Shri Debadutta Behera. Further, it was not true that her husband could not file before the Page 10 of 12 appellate authority challenging his punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority. Moreover, Shri Behera had already appealed to the Appellate and Reviewing Authority challenging his punishment order. Further, the information related to disciplinary proceedings against one employee and also about functioning of the bank, therefore, information was denied under section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the respondent failed to provide the information to the complainant although it was stated in the complaint that the complainant had sought information about her husband Shri Debadutta Behera. In spite of lapse of over two years from the date of filing of RTI application and after a hearing before the Commission, the respondent maintained their earlier stand for denial of information. Perusal of the RTI application revealed that the complainant sought details of complaints filed against Shri Debadutta Behera. That being so, the exemption claimed by the respondent was not sustainable in the eyes of law. It may not be out of place to mention that the principles of natural justice demand that no person shall be condemned unheard. In the present matter, the complainant i.e. wife of charged officer had been seeking information i.e. details of the complaints filed against him, etc. The CPIO without following the mandate of law i.e. provisions under section 11 (1) of the RTI Act denied the information. Not only they denied the information, they failed to give response to the RTI application point-wise in spite time of approximately 3 years having elapsed and the matter having been listed before the Commission twice. Moreover, the plea that the respondent was not aware that the complainant had sought information about her husband and their employee appears to be misleading since the complainant mentioned the relationship in her complaint. Therefore, the explanations submitted by the CPIOs are not satisfactory. In view of the above, mala fide on part of both the CPIOs, the Commission finds it a fit case for imposition of penalty under provisions of section 20 (1) of RTI Act.

6.1. The Commission notes that the negligence of duty as designated CPIOs appears to be deliberate and mala fide is established on part of both Shri Mahesh Chandra, the then CPIO and Shri Jagabandhu Dalai, present CPIO, hence, both are found liable as per section 20 (1) of RTI Act. In view of this, a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) may be Page 11 of 12 imposed on both and Rs. 10,000/- shall be deducted from each of their salaries of Shri Mahesh Chandra, the then CPIO and Shri Jagabandhu Dalai, present CPIO, by the Public Authority in equal instalments and paid by way of demand draft drawn in favour of "PAO, CAT", New Delhi, forward the demand drafts addressed to the Deputy Registrar (CR-II), email: [email protected] Room No. 106, First Floor, Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi 110067. The first instalment of penalty amount should reach to the Commission by 01.08.2022 and final instalment should reach to the Commission by 01.09.2022. With these directions, the complaint is closed.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेश चं ा) ा Information Commissioner (सूसूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 30.06.2022 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) दनांक/Date: 30.06.2022 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO: PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE, 4TH FLOOR, DEENDAYAL BHAWAN, JANAPATH, ASHOK NAGAR, BHUBANESWAR -751009 SHRI SARADAKANTI DALAI Page 12 of 12

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission