Information from Bank - CIC: It was not the case that the respondent PNB had not given any reply and no mala fide could be attributed to the decision taken by them; There appears to be no merit in the complaint and accordingly, complaint is disposed of
2 Mar, 2024O R D E R
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 02.05.2022 seeking information on the following points:
- Furnish the following information with regard to the branch of Punjab National Bank, known as "Clock Tower Branch" located at Race Course Road, Dehradun.
(i) The name, address, designation and telephone numbers, (mobile as well as landline) of the present Branch Head of the said Branch and the date of his/her taking charge.
(ii) The name, address, designation and telephone numbers, (mobile as well as landline) of the officer of the said Branch who was incharge of payment of fixed deposits for the period from 20-04-2022 to 02-05-2022.
(iii) The name, address, designation and telephone numbers of the Security Guard who was on duty at the said Branch from 20-04-2022 to 02-05-2022 as well as his/her working hours during the said period.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 20.05.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
(i) Name of present incumbent- Mrs. Daechin Palmo, Chief Manager, Date of taking charge- 06.05.2022. As on date 02.05.2022, Incumbent - Sh. Pradeep Kumar Singhal, Chief Manager.
(ii) Name of Incharge from 20.04.2022 to 22.04.2022-Mrs. Himanshi Srivastava and from 25.04.2022 to 02.05.2022- Mrs. Renu Dayal, Senior Manager. (iii) Security guard name- Sh. Vijendra Singh working hours from 10:00 AM to 04:00 PM till the closing of cash.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 23.06.2022.
4. The Complainant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Neeraj Jakhmola, AGM, attended the hearing through video conference.
5. The Complainant inter alia submitted that the reply which had been furnished is not in accordance with the information sought in the RTI application. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to furnish the information, as sought.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that a suitable response to the RTI application in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the Complainant vide their letter dated 20.05.2022. subsequently, an additional reply was also furnished to the appellant on 01.07.2022, wherein, remaining information was also provided to the appellant. He informed the Commission that the information sought was also related to the third party. Therefore, they expressed their inability to provide the third party information to the appellant.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observed that the respondent had provided information or reply to the complainant vide letters dated 20.05.2022 and 01.07.2022. It was not the case that the respondent had not given any reply and no mala fide could be attributed to the decision taken by them. That being so and the reply having been given to the complainant, there appears to be no merit in the complaint. Accordingly, the complaint is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
ANANDI RAMALINGAM
Information Commissioner
Citation: N. K. Sarin v. Punjab National Bank, Complaint No. CIC/PNBNK/C/2022/129882; Date of Decision: 01.02.2024