ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.07.2022 seeking information through 9 points in the following manner:

(i) “Your letter to Central Vigilance Commission seeking their second stage advice on Disciplinary Action Against the WTD of Punjab National Bank in 2018 and 2019.

(ii) Your OM No. 05/2018- Vig dated 04-12-2018 on Disciplinary Action against WTD of Punjab National Bank.

(iii) Advice received from CVC on Disciplinary Action against WTD of Punjab National Bank in response to your reference dated 04-12-2018.

(iv) Central Vigilance Commission Office Memorandum no. 1804/BNK/29-404281 dated 26.12.2018 addressed to you on Disciplinary Action against the WTD of Punjab National Bank.

(v) Minutes of your Meeting with CVC officials held on 21-12-2018 or any subsequent date as directed in terms of the Commission OM dated 26-12-2018.”

etc.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 26.07.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“The information/documents sought for by you, vide points no. (i) to (ix) of RTI application are confidential/ classified documents. Such information falls within the ambit of provision u/s 8(l)(g) and 8(l)(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Hence, the information/documents sought by you could not be provided to you.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.07.2022. The FAA vide order dated 26.08.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO and observed as under:

“With reference to above mentioned appeal of Sh. Sanjiv Sharan, it is stated that the decision for Disciplinary Action against the WTD of Punjab National Bank (PNB) in 2018 and 2019 had been made by the competent authority on the basis of the findings of the CBI as contained in the CBI Report. The CBI has been exempted from the Right to Information Act, 2005 as per Govt. of India Notification F.No.1/3/2011-IR dated 09.06.2011 and as such the RTI Act, 2005 is not applicable to CBI.”

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 23.09.2022 stating inter alia as under:

“5. On 3rd July 2018 the DFS had issued a show cause notice to the Appellant and subsequent to the Appellant's reply by its order dated 18th January 2019 the DFS had removed the Appellant from the office of the executive director Punjab national Bank. The information requested by the appellant is a copy of correspondence made by the DFS with CVC seeking the second stage advice for passing an order in the related staff side case against the petitioner. A copy of the show cause notice dated 03-07-2018 and the related order dated 18.01 .2019 is enclosed…

6. In the light of the submission made above (at point no. 5), It is quite evident that the invocation of section 8 (1)(g) and 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act 2005 by the CPIO was absolutely wrong and intentional to deny information, which the appellant is legally entitled to know. The requisitioned information was not to endanger life or physical safety of any person nor it had anything to do with any investigation or prosecution…

7. The appellate authority concurred with the CPIO and denied information to the Appellant citing altogether different reasons. It stated that the disciplinary action against the petitioner was on the basis of the findings of CBI as contained in the CBI report and CBI has been exempted from RTI Act 2005. This claim is wrong. The show cause notice dated 03.07.2018 culminating into the order dated 18.01 .2019 removing the appellant was based on an RBI letter and has nothing to do with CBI. A mere perusal of the Show Cause Notice and the Order enclosed as Annexure -V & VI to this Appeal will endorse the fact as narrated above.”

5. The Appellant was connected through audio call due to unavailability of the NIC studio at which the hearing was scheduled to be connected. While, on behalf of the