CIC issued a Show-cause notice to PIO as to why action u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against him for not responding to the RTI application within stipulated time & for remaining absent during the hearing, along with the comments of FAA

O R D E R

1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 13.01.2023 seeking information on the following points:

It is submitted that Locker No 10 was hired in December 1998 and surrendered the same with PNB, industrial Area, Jalandhar in 2018. Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005 in pdf form at my email id:

(i) Kindly provide the pdf copy of documents signed by us at the time of hire of locked 10. Kindly provide pdf copy of Fix Deposit Receipts for period 29 and December 1998. Kindly provide date of maturity of securities/FDRs issued on 29 and 30 Dec., 1998.

(ii) Kindly provide details of deposit amount taken/charged by bank from in respect of locker 10 on 29 and 30 December 1998 as a locker security in view of Bank Policy. Kindly provide the pdf copy of complete set of documents signed at the time of surrender of locker 10 and provide the date of surrender of locker 10.

(iii) Kindly provide the date wise names of persons and amount of security taken by the PNB Industrial Area/bank authorities in lieu of hire/rent of locker(s) during 1998- 1999. Kindly intimate the status of security taken/charged by PNB Industrial Area/bank authorities during 1998-1999 related to Locker No.10. (iv) Kindly provide the pdf copy of Securities/FDRs register for the said period 1998- 1999.Kindly provide date of maturity of Securities/ FDRs taken/Issued by PNB Industrial Area/bank authorities as security of lockers on 29 and 30 December 1998. (v) Kindly provide the date of credited the maturity value of security/FDR related to locker no. 10 and provide the Account Number in which the maturity value of security/FDR has been credited. Kindly provide details of account number and matured amount of Securities/FDRs credited during 2004-2005 and 2010-2011 related to lockers. etc.

2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 15.02.2023.

3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of FAA’s order, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 03.04.2023. Subsequently, the CPIO, replied vide letter dated 26.06.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“FDR linked with locker no. 10 credited in the account of customer.”

4. Subsequently, the FAA has been disposed of on 19.08.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“No record was found as the same was old data. However, amount pertaining to disputed FDR has been paid to the customer and intimated as reported by CPIO.”

5. The Complainant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Randeep Sharma, Dy. Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The Complainant inter alia submitted that he filed a complaint regarding non receiving credit of maturity value of FDR amount after surrendering locker to the bank but till date no proper action has been taken. Moreover, no reply to the RTI application had been furnished by the Respondent till date. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the information, as sought.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that bank has credited interest as per prevailing rate to the complainant and calculation details had also been furnished to the complainant on 07.08.2022. When enquired by the Commission regarding a reply to the RTI application, he submitted that the RTI application was responded by the CPIO vide letter dated 26.06.2023.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the RTI application was responded by the CPIO on 26.06.2023. Besides, there was a considerable delay of 06 months in disposing the RTI application and the first appeal and Mr. Randeep Sharma failed to explain the cogent reasons for such inordinate delay. Further, the Commission expressed its displeasure over the conduct of the CPIO for not responding to the above-mentioned RTI application within the stipulated time frame. The Commission takes serious note of the absence of the CPIO, Mr. Gurbrindra Singh Batth, who apart from remaining absent during the hearing also did not give clear instructions to his/her representative. In view of this, the Commission issues a Show-cause notice to CPIO, Mr. Gurbrindra Singh Batth, as to why action 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 should not be initiated against him for not responding to the RTI application within stipulated time and for remaining absent during the hearing, along with the comments of the First Appellate Authority by uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper-compliance/add, within 15 days from the date of the receipt of this order. Mr. Randeep Sharma, Dy. Manager, is under obligation to serve a copy of this order to the present CPIO and secure his explanation. All the written explanation must reach the Commission within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

With this observation the complaint is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

ANANDI RAMALINGAM

Information Commissioner

Citation: Ramesh Kumar v. Punjab National Bank, Complaint No. CIC/PNBNK/C/2023/617093; Date of Decision: 05.08.2024