CIC had directed PIO to collect the information from the CPIOs of different Regions and provide it - Appellant tried to bring forth contradictions in the replies - PIO stated it was different entity - CIC: Due information provided

O R D E R

1. The issue under consideration is the complaint for non-compliance dated 15.07.2022 of CIC’s order dated 11.05.2022 in the above matters.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application on 05.09.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab & Sind Bank, Delhi seeking information as per his RTI application. The CPIO vide his letter dated 23.09.2019 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved with the same, the appellant filed first appeal on 14.11.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) passed order on 26.11.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed second appeal dated 30.01.2020 before the Commission which was heard and disposed of vide order dated 11.05.2022with the following directions:

“6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the RTI application was forwarded to the CPIOs of Punjab & Sind Bank, Gurgaon, Bareilly, Lucknow and Dehradun. Perusal of the records reveals that CPIOs of Dehradun and Gurgaon had replied to the RTI application and rest of the CPIOs had not replied till the date of hearing. Since, the CPIOs of Bareilly and Lucknow Regions were not present before the Commission and in view of their absence reasons for non-response to the RTI application could not be ascertained. It was also noted that the FAA’s directions was not complied with by the CPIOs of all four Zones. In view of the above, the Commission directs the CPIO, Punjab & Sind Bank, New Delhi, to collect the information from the CPIOs of different Regions (Gurgaon, Bareilly, Lucknow and Dehradun) and provide the same to the appellant within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of. “

3. The appellant has filed the non-compliance complaint dated 15.07.2022 complaining that the reply provided by CPIO was evasive and misleading. He stated that with regard to the assertion of CPIO that there was no such Parishad in Dehradun, he enclosed a letter, showing the sanction order of the Bank in favour of the Parishad; as regards the reply that no meeting held in Lucknow, he enclosed a copy of letter showing a circular, purportedly issued by the Bank about the IRA meeting; and as regards the assertions of CPIO that no meeting was held at Bareilly, he enclosed a certificate of attendance issued by Bank to Shri Kailash Chandra. Thus, the appellant tried to bring forth contradictions in the replies of CPIO alleging misleading and evasive replies. The Registry has issued a letter dated 18.07.2022 to the CPIO seeking their comments on the complaint of the appellant.

4. In compliance to the orders and in response to the letter of the Registry, the CPIO by their letter dated 10.08.2022 addressed to the Commission with copy to the appellant, gave a reply stating that they had already complied with the orders of the Commission by providing due information pertaining to Akhil Bhartiya Punjab & Sind Bank Anusuchit Jaati/ Janjaati Karmchari Parishad. The appellant, by enclosing letters relating to All India PSB SC/ST Employees Welfare Council, was alleging non-compliance. They stated it was different entity.

5. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided due reply/information. The information having been provided, there is no further intervention of this Commission required in the matter. With these observations, the complaint of noncompliance is closed.

Sd/-

Suresh Chandra

Information Commissioner

Citation: Virendra Yadav v. Punjab & Sind Bank, CIC/PASBK/A/2020/105092; 18.05.2023