Navigating the Second Appeal: Yogi M P Singh vs. Punjab National Bank 🏦
This blog post analyzes the second appeal notice and supporting documents filed by Yogi M P Singh against the Punjab National Bank (PNB) before the Central Information Commission (CIC) regarding a rejected Right to Information (RTI) request. The case, under File No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2023/651218, highlights common friction points in the RTI process, specifically concerning the disclosure of employee details and branch-specific financial data like Non-Performing Assets (NPAs).
📅 Key Dates and Case Milestones
The timeline of the case outlines the formal process followed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act):
- RTI Application Date: 08-08-2023
- Registration No. PNBNK/R/E/23/01926 and PNBNK/R/E/23/01927
- CPIO Reply Date: 24-08-2023
- First Appeal Date: 05-09-2023
- Registration No. PNBNK/A/E/23/00582
- First Appellate Authority (FAA) Order Date: 30-09-2023
- Second Appeal Hearing Date/Time: 09-12-2024 at 12:40 PM
- Hon’ble Information Commissioner: Ms. Anandi Ramalingam
- Appellant: Yogi M P Singh (Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh)
- Respondent/CPIO: The CPIO, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh.
The fact that the matter has reached a second appeal before the CIC indicates that the information seeker was not satisfied with the reply from the CPIO and the order of the FAA.
💡 Information Sought: Employee Details and NPAs
The core of the RTI request spans 13 specific points, which can be grouped into two main categories:
1. Personnel and Posting Details (Points 1-4)
The appellant sought details about specific PNB employees at the PNB Civil Lines, Bulandshahr branch and the Bulandshahr R M Office:
- Posting details (including date of joining) of the Branch Manager, Akhilesh, PNB Civil Lines, Bulandshahr.
- Transfer details of the said Branch Manager within the circle.
- Posting details of staff in the Loan Section of the Bulandshahr R M Office.
- Posting details, name, and designation of the Monitoring Head of the Loan Section of the Bulandshahr R M Office.
2. Branch-Specific Financial Data (Points 5-12)
The request also targeted financial transparency, specifically asking for the Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) of the PNB Civil Lines, Bulandshahr branch for eight consecutive financial years, from 2015-16 to 2022-23.
3. Statutory Disclosure (Point 13)
Finally, the appellant asked whether the information sought is already available under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, which mandates voluntary disclosure by public authorities concerning their structure and working.
This provision is crucial as it not only promotes transparency but also empowers citizens to access information that is fundamental to holding government bodies accountable.
By ensuring that relevant details about the functioning of public authorities are made accessible to the general public, Section 4(1)(b) plays an essential role in enhancing the democratic process.
Consequently, the appellant emphasized the importance of ascertaining whether the requested information falls under this directive, as obtaining such data could greatly assist in understanding the operational dynamics of the agency in question and foster informed public engagement.
🛑 Grounds for Denial by CPIO (Kamal Kishor Thakur)
The CPIO denied the information based on the following specific sections of the RTI Act:
- Personnel Details (Points 1, 3, 4):
- Denial was based on Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, claiming the information is personal information of a third party and no larger public interest was established.
- Appellant’s Rebuttal: The appellant argues that a Branch Manager is not a ‘third party’ and that posting details are essential for transparency and accountability in a public authority’s working.
- Transfer Details (Point 2) and Staff Details (Points 3, 4):
- Denial cited that the information sought was “not clear & specific” and “not covered under the definition of ‘Information’ u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.”
- Appellant’s Rebuttal: The appellant contested this as a “false flimsy ground” driven by a fear of exposure of alleged corruption and plum postings.
- Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) Data (Points 5-12):
- Denial was based on Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, stating that the information is “not available in the manner sought” and that “collection and compilation of the same would divert the resources of the bank disproportionately.”
- Appellant’s Rebuttal: The appellant provided a compelling counter-example, including a reply from the CPIO of Bank of India (Registration No. BKOIN/R/E/22/00135), which provided similar branch-level NPA figures for multiple years without claiming a disproportionate diversion of resources. This forms a critical part of the appellant’s argument for the CIC hearing.
🏛️ The Role of the Central Information Commission (CIC)
The second appeal hearing on December 9, 2024, will be crucial. The Hon’ble information Commissioner, Ms. Anandi Ramalingam, will assess the validity of the CPIO’s exemption claims against the appellant’s right to information.
Section 8(1)(j) and Public Interest
The Commission will examine whether the posting and transfer details of a bank manager and other key staff, especially those in the loan section, constitute ‘personal information’ or whether their designation/location is a matter of ‘public activity’ concerning public interest. Judgments have often leaned towards transparency for public servants, especially when allegations of corruption (implied by the appellant) are raised.
Section 7(9) and Disproportionate Diversion
The primary contest for the NPA data will revolve around Section 7(9). The CPIO must demonstrate why providing branch-level NPA data would disproportionately divert PNB’s resources, especially given that a similar Public Sector Bank (Bank of India) provided comparable information to the same applicant. This comparison will significantly pressure PNB to substantiate its claim.
📍 Hearing Logistics
The hearing is scheduled for 09-12-2024 at 12:40 PM.
- Appellant (Yogi M P Singh) Venue: N.I.C. District Centre, Collectorate Complex, District – Mirzapur-231001 (Uttar Pradesh).
- CPIO Venue (Via Video Conferencing): N.I.C. Video Conferencing Studio, District Collectorate, Bulandshahar-203001 (Uttar Pradesh).
The CPIO has been directed to personally attend the hearing and ensure that the authorized representative, if any, is fully acquainted with the case facts and carries the complete file/files. This emphasizes the seriousness of the CIC proceedings.
The Way Forward
The outcome of this hearing will provide an important precedent regarding the disclosure of employee movement and granular financial data of public sector banks under the RTI Act. The appellant’s direct comparison with the Bank of India’s previous disclosure offers a strong foundation to argue against PNB’s claim of disproportionate resource diversion.
Would you like me to elaborate on the specific sections of the RTI Act (like Section 8(1)(j) or 7(9)) relevant to this case?
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.