PIO informed that the bank had challenged the order of the Commission - CIC: Challenging the order may not be legal ground to circumvent the orders of the Commission; Penalty of Rs. 10,000- imposed upon Shri Anand Joshi, the PIO
25 Oct, 2023O R D E R
1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 09.12.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through the RTI application dated 03.09.2019 and first appeal dated 29.10.2019:-
Kindly refer to the Writ Appeal No. 377/2019 titled Punjab and Sind Bank and others vs. Durgesh Kuwar w/o Rakesh Mamodia, filed before Hon’ble Divisional bench High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench challenging the orders passed by Hon’ble Single bench in WP 9048/2018. With reference to WA 377/2019, kindly provide the following information:
(i) (a) Certified copies of the bills raised by the counsels engaged by the Bank for contesting the case before the Hon’ble Divisional bench.
(i) (b) Certified copies of TA bills sanctioned to the officials, whose services were utilized to contest the case before the Hon’ble Division Bench.
(ii) (a) Name and designation of the officials who have approved the counsel fees mentioned in para (i) (a) above.
(ii) (b) Name and designation of the officials who have approved the counsel fees mentioned in para (i) (b) above
(iii) Certified copy of the file & file noting, vide which it was decided to challenge the orders passed by Honorable single bench in WP 9048/2018 before divisional bench.
(iv) Name and designation of officials whose opinion/views/comments find place in files mentioned in para (iii) above.
(v) Whether the judgment passed by the Hon’ble single bench in WP 9048/2018 was place before Board of Directors of the Bank.
(v) (a) If yes, kindly provide certified copies of the related board note and board resolution.
2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 03.09.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab & Sind Bank, New Delhi, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 01.10.2019 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 29.10.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 07.11.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed second appeal dated 09.12.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.
3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 09.12.2019 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 vide letter dated 01.10.2019expressed their inability to provide the information as the matter was sub-judice and final decision was yet to come. The FAA vide order dated 07.11.2019 upheld the CPIO’s reply.
Hearing on 26.04.2022:
4.1. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Milind Puchke, Asstt. General Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Bhopal attended the hearing through video conference and Shri Nitai Chandra Das, Asstt. General Manager & CPIO, Shri Akshay Kumar Dewal, Punjab & Sind Bank, Delhi attended the hearing in person.
4.2. The Commission passed the following directions on 25.05.2022:
“6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the respondent had perfunctorily denied the information on the ground of sub-judice. It may not be out of place to mention that as per the provisions of section 8 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005, no specific exemption is codified which allows non-disclosure of information on the ground that the matter is sub-judice. In this context, the High Court of Delhi in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. R.K. Jain in W.P. (C) 14120/ 2009 dated 23.09.2010 had made the following observations:
“5...........The matter being sub judice before a court is not one of the categories of information which is exempt from disclosure under any of the clauses of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.”
Therefore, the exemptions claimed by the respondent were not sustainable in eyes of law. It was also observed that more than two years have elapsed and information sought was not provided to the appellant. In view of the above, Shri A P Jain, the then CPIO and Shri Nitai Chandra Das, the present CPIO are show caused as to why penalty under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act may not be imposed upon 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 attendance on the next date of hearing. All written explanations (from both the CPIOs) may be uploaded on the commission's web portal within 21 days.
Meanwhile, the respondent is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide revised point-wise information/reply to the appellant within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.”
Hearing on 25.08.2022
4.3. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Subhash Chandra Sagar, Asstt. General Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Delhi and Shri A.P. Jain, the then CPIO, Punjab & Sind Bank, Bhopal, attended the hearing through video conference and Shri Nitai Chandra Das, Asstt. General Manager & CPIO, Shri Akshay Kumar Dewal, Punjab & Sind Bank, Delhi attended the hearing in person.
4.4. The Commission passed the following directions on 13.09.2022:
“6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the respondent have not provided the requisite information in spite of the directions of the Commission.
The Commission takes a serious view of the lapse on the part of the respondent for not only withholding the information but also ignoring sensitive cases such as this one. The respondent have denied the information stating that they were internal records and have been harassing a woman employee apart from causing unwarranted burden on the public exchequer. During the course of hearing, it was submitted that Shri Anand Joshi was the concerned CPIO. In view of the above, Shri Anand Joshi, CPIO is show caused as to why penalty under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act may not be imposed upon him for not furnishing the requisite information. The present CPIO is given the responsibility to serve a copy of this order upon Shri Anand Joshi and secure his written explanations as well as his attendance on the next date of hearing. All written submissions may be uploaded on the Commission’s web portal within 21 days. Meanwhile, the respondent is directed that suitable revised reply/information be made available to the appellant and a copy of the same be uploaded on the Commission’s web portal. The decision regarding imposition or non-imposition of penalty upon Shri A P Jain, the then CPIO and Shri Nitai Chandra Das, the present CPIO, is reserved and they may not be exonerated from penalty proceedings till the next date of hearing.”
Hearing on 25.10.2022
4.5. The appellant as well as respondent remained absent despite notice.
Interim order dated 16.12.2022
4.6 The Commission has passed the following observations and directions on 16.12.2022:
“6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of records, observed that the hearing notice was not sent to Delhi Office although the officers Shri A P Jain, the then CPIO and Shri Nitai Chandra Das, the present CPIO, from Delhi Office had not been exonerated from penalty proceedings. Besides, the hearing notice sent to Shri Anand Joshi was returned from Bhopal Zonal Office. Therefore, the Registry of this Bench is directed to serve a copy of this order as well as hearing notice to the Delhi Office as well as Bhopal Zonal Office for the next date of hearing. The CPIOs (Shri Anand Joshi, Shri A P Jain, the then CPIO and Shri Nitai Chandra Das) are given a final opportunity to submit their written explanations in response to the show cause notices issued on 09.09.2022. The CPIO, Punjab & Sind Bank, Delhi is also given the responsibility to secure the written explanations as well as attendance of Shri Anand Joshi, CPIO, Bhopal, on the next date of hearing. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned.”
Hearing on 31.05.2023
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Anand Joshi, CPIO, Punjab & Sind Bank, Bhopal, attended the hearing through video conference and Shri Sanjeev Kumat Suman, Assistant General Manager, Shri Akshay Kumar Dewal, Officer and Shri Subhash Chand Sagar, Assistant General Manager and the then CPIO, Punjab & Sind Bank, Delhi attended the hearing in person.
5.1 The appellant inter alia submitted that despite directions of the Commission, information sought on point nos. (i) (b), (iii) & (iv) of the RTI application was not provided by the respondent till the date of hearing.
5.2 Shri Anand Joshi, the present CPIO, Bhopal while presenting his case inter alia submitted that he had provided revised point-wise information to the appellant vide letter dated 28.06.2022 to the appellant. As regard to the exemption claimed against point no. (iii) & (iv) of the RTI application, he informed that the custodian of information was his HRD Department, Head Office, New Delhi which had claimed such exemption and accordingly same was replied to the appellant. As regard to the show cause notice, Mr. Joshi, submitted that the bank had decided to challenge the order dated 13.09.2022 of the Commission. In response to a query, Mr. Joshi informed that he had not served copies of the show case notice to Shri A P Jain, the then CPIO, Bhopal and Shri Nitai Chandra Das, the CPIO, New Delhi (as on 26.04.2022) and hence they did not appear before the Commission. He further informed that he had utmost faith in the Commission and reply was given without having any mala fide. Accordingly, he requested the Commission to drop the penalty proceedings.
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that in spite of the orders of the Commission dated 25.05.2022 and 13.09.2022, the respondent had failed to provide the information as directed by the Commission. Shri Anand Joshi, the CPIO, Bhopal, inter alia informed that the bank had challenged the order dated 13.09.2022 of the Commission. It may not be out of place to mention that challenging the order may not be legal ground to circumvent the orders of the Commission. The appellant inter alia informed that the respondent had not provided the information in respect of point nos. (i) (b) (iii) ad (iv) of the RTI application. The appellant had been pressing for the information sought against point nos. (i) (b), (iii) and (iv) of the RTI application only.
6.1 Perusal of point No. (i) (b) revealed that the appellant had been seeking the information which was a matter between employee and employer. With respect to point no. (iii), the appellant had sought the file notings wherein the decision was taken to challenge the order passed by the Single Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh. It may not be out of place to mention that there are plethora of cases wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has imposed exemplary cost upon the persons who entangled the public authorities into unwarranted litigation and directed that the same may be recovered from the personal salaries of the officials who had forced upon the public authorities unwarranted litigation and had put consequent burden on the public exchequer. If the authorities had acted upon competent legal advice in challenging the order before the Divisional Bench, then there should be no fear of disclosing the information. If there were elements of malfeasance and mala fide in taking a decision to challenge the order, then the erring officer should not be insulated by not disclosing the decision making process. If such unscrupulous and irresponsible officials are not made accountable then the public accountability and transparency will remain a distant dream to be achieved. The aims and objects of the RTI Act was to bring accountability and transparency and prevent corruption in the system. The Commission takes a serious note of non-disclosing of information in spite of Commission’s order and further putting burden on the public exchequer by challenging the orders of the Commission or court to hide malfeasance done by such an arrogant official and creating burden on the public exchequer. In view of the above and in view of not submitting any explanation to the show cause, the Commission finds that there is a mala fide on the part of the officials to whom the show cause was served and had endeavoured to stultify the proceedings before the Commission. The Commission had issued show cause notice to Shri A P Jain, the then CPIO, Bhopal, Shri Nitai Chandra Das, the CPIO, Delhi (as on 26.04.2022) vide order dated 25.05.2022. The show cause notice was also served to Shri Anand Joshi, the concerned CPIO, Bhopal Region. Shri Anand Joshi, the CPIO, Bhopal, informed that he had not complied with the directions of the Commission in its order dated 16.12.2022 and had not served copies of the show cause notice upon Shri A.P. Jain, the then CPIO, Bhopal and Shri Nitai Chandra Das, the CPIO, Delhi as 26.04.2022 in this case.
6.2. In view of the above, the mala fide was established on part of Shri Anand Joshi, the CPIO, Bhopal, and therefore he was found liable as per section 20 (1) of RTI Act. Accordingly, a penalty of Rs. 10,000- (Rupees Ten Thousand) may be imposed upon Shri Anand Joshi, the CPIO, Bhopal. The amount of Rs. 10,000/- shall be deducted from the salary of Shri Anand Joshi, the CPIO, Bhopal (in two equal instalments) by the Public Authority 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: dyregcr2-cic@gov.in 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 01.10.2023 and the final instalment should reach the Commission by 01.11.2023.
6.3. Further, during the course of hearing Shri Anand Joshi, the CPIO, Bhopal also submitted that the custodian of information sought on point no. (iii) and (iv) of the RTI application was his HRD Department, Head Office, New Delhi which had claimed such exemption and accordingly reply was given to the appellant. Further, Shri Anand Joshi, the CPIO, Bhopal is given a responsibility to serve copies of this order upon Shri A.P. Jain, the then CPIO, Bhopal and Shri Nitai Chandra Das, the CPIO, Delhi as on 26.04.2022 and Shri Krishna Rao, GM, HRD Department (as deemed CPIO) to seek their explanations as to why maximum penalty may not be imposed under Section 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. of the RTI Act upon each of them and secure their attendance on the next date of hearing.
All the officials are directed to comply with the order, file their written submissions & attend hearing on the next date of hearing. No separate individual notice are required to be given to the parties/officials. In the meanwhile, the respondent is directed to give revised information/reply on point nos. (i) (b), (iii) & (iv) of the RTI application to the appellant within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order and copy thereof may be uploaded on the Commission’s web portal form the date of receipt of this order.
Accordingly, the matter is adjourned.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Suresh Chandra)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Durgesh Kuwar v. Punjab & Sind Bank, CIC/PASBK/A/2019/160744; 05.09.2023