O R D E R

(05.06.2023)

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 24.10.2021 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 04.07.2021 and first appeal dated 12.09.2021:- (i) Whether Catinat Carpourame Soupparyar, an officer of PNB Mudaliyapet Branch, Pondicherry had applied for permission and obtained the same from his employer the PNB before accepting to be the agent and executing Doc No. 2404.2007-S.R.O. Annanagar Chennai as power agent as per the service rules of the Public Sector Banks (PNB) ?

(ii) Whether after executing the sale deed doc no. 2404/2007 and on receipt of the above said 9 DD’s and 1 cheque in his favour on PNB Periamet, Chennai intimated the same to his employer PNB, Mudaliapet, Pondicherry ?

(iii) Furnish the name or names of the purchasers of these 9 PNB Demand Drafts (iv) Furnish the information whether the person or persons paid through cash or cheques while purchasing these 9 PNB DDs (v) Furnish the name of the Drawer of the PNB cheque No. ****38.

(vi) Whether these 9 PNB DDs and 1 PNB cheques were encashed by Catinat Carpourame Souppararyar?

(vii) If so furnish the date of encashment and the beneficiary’s Bank and his Account Nos.

(viii) If not encashed, what happened to these 9 PNB DD’s (ix) Whether they were cancelled?

(x) Get the physical photocopies of the above 9 PNB DD’s and 1 PNB cheque. Furnish the information and documents regarding the above (i) to (x) items. Whether inspection of records also sought - Yes

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 04.07.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, New Delhi, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 12.08.2021. replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 12.09.2021. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 27.09.2021 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 24.10.2021 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 24.10.2021 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 12.08.2021and the same is reproduced as under:- “This information sought is a third party information and exempted from disclosure u/s 8 (i) (j) of RTI Act, 2005.”

The FAA vide order dated 27.09.2021 concurred with the opinion of the CPIO and upheld the decision.

5. The appellant attended the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Shri Jaseem Siddiqui, AGM (Law) and Shri Kunal Chauhan, Law Officer, Punjab National Bank, Delhi attended the hearing in person.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had been defrauded by few bank officials. He further argued that he was an ex-official in the respondent bank and during his tenure, a bank official had fraudulently executed sale deed through fake Power of Attorney on behalf of certain French citizens. He further stated that the bank was trying to cover up the malfeasance and protect its errant and corrupt officers.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had raised mostly queries and had raised serious allegations against the bank without any supporting documents or details of the matter. They had furnished point-wise reply to the appellant vide their letter dated 12.08.2021.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the reply given by the respondent was incomplete and evasive. It may be noted that the respondent had not addressed all points in the RTI applicati