Information relating to non vigilance cases & cases in which RDA has been charged with conducting the prosecution was sought - PIO: compilation from circle offices across the country would disproportionately divert the resources - CIC: appeal dismissed28 Apr, 2014
Information relating to non vigilance cases and cases in which RDA has been charged with conducting the prosecution was sought - PIO: sought information is not maintained in a centralized form and the compilation of the same from the circle offices across the country would disproportionately divert the resources - CIC: appeal dismissed
1. The appellant, Mr. Avneet Singh, has submitted the RTI application dated 18 September 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, New Delhi; seeking information relating to number of staff side cases from September 2011 to August, 2012, where CVO has recommended/advised the disciplinary authority to impose tangible punishment in non vigilance cases, number of cases where CVO has sought view /recommendation of disciplinary authority (DA) on irregularities/lapses on the part of erring officials & CVC’s instructions/Bank Guidelines/circular which authorized them to do so and also sought the information relating to criminal prosecution in Court of Law & departmental proceeding against the erring officials and cases in which RDA has been charged with conducting the prosecution.
2. Vide reply dated 17 October 2012, the CPIO replied on point no. 1, 5,& 6 that no record is being maintained by department; in relation to point 2 &4, he replied that the guidelines are available at the Commission’s website and on point 3 he added that role of vigilance department is only consultative. Not satisfied by the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred appeal dated 11 October 2012 to the first appellate authority (FAA) on the ground that the CPIO failed to mention the specific provision of the RTI Act whereby he denied information. Vide order dated 27 November 2012, the FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO.
3. The CPIO submitted that information sought by the appellant is not maintained by the public authority in a centralized form and the compilation of the same from the circle offices across the country would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority.
4. He added that they can consider providing information if the applicant asked for any specific information relating to particular branch of the public authority.
5. In view of the above position, the Commission upholds the CPIO/FAA’s decision. The appeal is dismissed. The case is closed.
Citation: Mr. Avneet Singh v. Punjab National Bank in Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2013/000273/MP