Action taken on alleged fraud of Rs. 2650 crores was denied u/s 8(1)(h) - PIO: they are not in possession of the information as the enquiry is being done by the CVC - CIC: inform whether any prosecution has been launched against the erring officials

ORDER

RTI application:

1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 11.09.2012 seeking information pertaining to action taken on certain news item on a fraud.

2. The PIO responded on 29.09.2012 and denied information to the appellant under section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act. The appellant filed a first appeal on 15.10.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 20.10.2012 and upheld the decision of CPIO. The appellant filed a second appeal on 09.11.2012 with the Commission.

Hearing:

3. The appellant and the respondent participated in the hearing personally.

4. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 11.09.2012 and stated that they had sought information regarding a news item published in the Times of India dated 23.08.2012 which pertained to a news item stating that there was an alleged fraud of Rs.2650 crores. The appellant stated that he wanted to know the particulars of the erring officials and the progress made in the matter if any enquiry has been done. The appellant stated that the information was denied to them.

5. The respondent stated that the CPIO had responded on 29.09.2012 in which the cover of section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act was taken according to which the exemption the information can be denied if it would impede the process of investigation for the apprehension of evader. The respondent stated that section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act was cited and that the proceedings launched through an enquiry as the first step is still continuing. The respondent stated that this was a matter which involved several banks as it was consortium advance.

6. The appellant stated that the respondent is being unnecessarily evasive in their response and that there have been occasions in the past when the proceedings were at enquiry stage in the similar cases and the information was provided. In support the appellant mentioned a letter of 27.10.2010 from the PNB.

7. The respondent stated that the instance as being cited by the appellant of another matter and that it is not similar to the matter in the RTI application. The respondent further stated that the basis of this RTI application is an unsubstantiated newspaper's item and that the earlier response still stands as the enquiry is still under progress.

8. The respondent stated that they actually did not have any information to provide because they are not in possession of the information as the enquiry is being done by the Central Vigilance Commission of the Government of India.

9. The appellant stated that he would like to know the following: (i) the progress made in the matter being discussed; (ii) whether up till now any prosecution has been launched against any of the erring officials in the process; and (iii) the names of the officials who have sanctioned the loan. The appellant stated that he understands that this is a consortium loaning but he is seeking information only in respect of the officials of the PNB. The appellant stated that he expected the bank to provide the information on the above.

10. What emerged from the hearing was that the respondent should inform the appellant about whether any prosecution has been launched against the erring officials.

Decision:

11. The respondent is directed to provide to the appellant, within 30 days of this order, the information, as available, on para 10 above in context of the RTI application. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.

(Vijai Sharma)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri J.K. Sawhney v. Punjab National Bank in Decision No.CIC/VS/A/2013/000010/05621