Due to clerical error, an amount of Rs. 30,000/- was withdrawn from the appellant’s bank account - CIC: PIO rendered unconditional apology for taking more than 5 days in transferring the RTI application - CIC took a lenient view & counselled the PIO

O R D E R

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi seeking information on five points pertaining to the action taken on his representation dated 03.08.2016, including, inter-alia,

(i) the date of receipt of the above said representation and the action taken against the officials of Punjab National Bank, Budhana Town Branch, Muzaffarnagar who were involved in the fraudulent/illegal withdrawal of Rs. 30000/- from the account of the appellant on 20.05.2013 and if no action has been taken against the officials, the reasons thereof and

(ii) if the Hon’ble Home Minister has issued any directions to enquire into the matter, the details/particulars of the Inquiry Officer along with a copy of such direction/order.

The RTI application was transferred to the O/o Private Secretary to the Finance Minister, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act vide letter dated 14.10.2016. Subsequently, the CPIO, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi transferred the RTI application to the Chief Vigilance Officer, Punjab National Bank, Head Office, Bhikaji Kama Place, New Delhi under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act vide letter dated 16.12.2016.

2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that no information has been provided to him so far and the CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and the CPIO, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi had taken more than 5 days in transferring the RTI application to the public authority concerned, which is a clear violation of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide point wise information to him and to take appropriate action against the respondent 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. and (2) of the RTI Act. He also requested the Commission to award him compensation under Section 19(8)(b) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; of the RTI Act for the mental and financial losses suffered by him due to non-furnishing of information by the CPIO.

Hearing:

3. The appellant Shri Raghubar Dayal Saini and the respondent Shri Ashutosh Arora, Senior Manager, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Kambalwala bagh, Muzaffarnagar, U.P. attended the hearing through video conferencing. The respondent Shri Arun Kumar, Under Secretary, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi was present in person.

4. The appellant submitted that he has sought information pertaining to the action taken on his representation dated 03.08.2016 filed with the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. However, no information has been provided to him so far. He stated that he filed the RTI application with the CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), North Block, New Delhi. The CPIO, MHA, New Delhi transferred the RTI application to the O/o Private Secretary to the Finance Minister, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act vide letter dated 14.10.2016. Subsequently, the CPIO, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi transferred the RTI application to the Chief Vigilance Officer, Punjab National Bank, Head Office, Bhikaji Kama Place, New Delhi under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act vide letter dated 16.12.2016. The appellant further submitted that as per Section 6(3) of the RTI Act the transfer of an RTI application shall be made in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application. Thus, the CPIOs concerned have acted in contravention of the RTI Act.

5. The respondent, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi submitted that as the subject matter of grievance and the RTI application closely relates to the Punjab National Bank, the RTI application along with a copy of the representation dated 03.08.2016 was transferred to the Chief Vigilance Officer, Punjab National Bank, Head Office, Bhikaji Kama Place, New Delhi under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act vide letter dated 16.12.2016. He admitted that a delay had occurred in transferring the RTI application to the public authority concerned. The respondent tendered his unconditional apology for this lapse and requested the Commission to condone the same.

6. The respondent, Punjab National Bank, Muzaffarnagar submitted that, due to a clerical error, an amount of Rs. 30,000/- had been withdrawn from the appellant’s bank account on 20.05.2013. However, as soon as the matter was brought to the notice of the bank, the error was rectified and the said amount was refunded to the appellant’s account on 03.04.2014. The appellant was informed accordingly vide letter dated 08.04.2019. He, however, admitted that a point wise reply has not been provided to the appellant. The respondent tendered his unconditional apology for this lapse and requested the Commission to condone the same.

Decision:

7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of all the parties and perusing the records, observes that though a reply was provided by the respondent vide letter dated 08.04.2019, point wise information to the RTI application has not been provided to the appellant. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO, Punjab National Bank, Muzaffarnagar to provide a point wise response to the RTI application, keeping in view the provisions of the RTI Act, to the appellant within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.

8. The Commission observes that as per Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, where an application is made to a public authority but the subject matter of the RTI application pertains to another public authority, the CPIO of the public authority receiving the RTI application has to transfer the same to the public authority concerned and such transfer of the application shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application. Yet, the CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and the CPIO, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi had taken more than 5 days in transferring the RTI application to the public authority concerned. The Commission, however, notes that the respondent not only admitted this lapse but also tendered his unconditional apology for the same. The Commission, therefore, takes a lenient view in the matter. Nonetheless, the CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and the CPIO, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi are, therefore, counselled to be more careful in future, so that such lapses do not recur.

9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/

Sudhir Bhargava

Chief Information Commissioner

Citation: Raghubar Dayal Saini v. CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs, and O/o Chief Vigilance Officer, Punjab National Bank in Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2017/154846, Date18.04.2019