Vinay Kumar Khanna vs Punjab & Sind Bank on 5 June, 2023

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Vinay Kumar Khanna vs Punjab & Sind Bank on 5 June, 2023

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 15.10.2021 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 10.08.2021 and first appeal dated 31.08.2021:-

"Common judgment passed by the Honorable Delhi High Court in LPA 673 to LPA 677 of 2015 dated 09 October 2015, kindly provide the following information:-

(i) Certified copy of the bills raised by the Banks counsel for contesting the case before the Honorable Delhi High Court.

(ii) Name & designation of the officials who have approved the counsel fees mentioned in para 1 above.

Page 1 of 4

(iii) Whether the impugned judgment of the Honorable Single Judge has been complied If yes, kindly provide the evidence for the same.

(iv) Certified copy of the File Noting in which it was decided to challenge the judgment of the Honorable Single Bench in LPA 673 to LPA 677 of 2015.

(v) Year wise number of employees against whom Charge sheets have been issued in terms of Regulation 48 of Punjab and Sind Bank Employees Pension Regulations 1995 since 09 October 2015 to date of providing information."

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 10.08.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab & Sind Bank, Delhi. The CPIO vide letter dated 26.08.2021 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 31.08.2021. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 23.09.2021 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 15.10.2021 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 15.10.2021 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant 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 26.08.2021 to the appellant and the same is reproduced as under:-

(i) Information pertains to third party hence denied as per RTI Act, Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act.

(ii) Information pertains to third party hence denied as per RTI Act, Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act.

(iii) Information pertains to third party hence denied as per RTI Act, Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act.

(iv) Information pertains to third party hence denied as per RTI Act, Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act.

(v) Information pertains to third party hence denied as per RTI Act, Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act.

Page 2 of 4

The FAA vide order dated 23.09.2021 concurred with the reply given by the CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Subhash Chand Sagar, AGM & CPIO and Shri Akshay Kumar Dewal, Law Officer, Punjab National Bank, Delhi attended the hearing in person.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that reply given by the respondent evasive and misleading. He contended that he had not sought any personal information of any individual therefore, the exemption claimed was not sustainable in the eyes of law.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that since the information sought was not related to the appellant hence the same was denied under section 8 (1) (j) 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 reply given by the respondent was incomplete and evasive. The respondent contended that copy of bills raised by the counsel of the bank was denied being personal information. It may not be out of place to mention that counsel fee was paid from the public fund and therefore there must be transparency in the expenses made from the public fund. Once the document of counsel i.e. bill was submitted to the public authority the same became public documents. Besides, the name & designations of the officer who had approved such bills had done public duty therefore, the exemption claimed was not sustainable in the eyes of law. The object of the RTI Act is to empower the citizens, promote transparency and accountability in the working of the public authority. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide the revised point- wise information to the appellant, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक/Date: 05.06.2023 Page 3 of 4 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत ) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

THE CPIO: PUNJAB & SIND BANK, 4TH FLOOR, BANK HOUSE, 21, RAJENDRA PLACE, NEW DELHI-110008 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY PUNJAB & SIND BANK, 4TH FLOOR, BANK HOUSE, 21, RAJENDRA PLACE, NEW DELHI-

110008 SH. VINAY KUMAR KHANNA Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission