The information seeker is seeking posting details of the branch manager and loan details. However, the public information officer of the public authority PNB denied the information. This implies that something is wrong in the posting of the Staff of the Punjab National Bank. The Right to Information Act 2005 was introduced by the government to promote transparency and accountability in the working of the public authorities. Think about the gravity of situation. Public authorities are not providing information in the name of privacy.

RTI Application seeking posting Challenges Punjab National Bank on Transparency and Accountability

An RTI (Right to Information) application filed with Punjab National Bank (PNB) has brought to light concerns regarding transparency. It highlights issues in the functioning of its Bulandshahr R M Office branch. The applicant, Yogi M P Singh, has raised several points seeking posting information about the branch’s staff, management, and financial health. However, the bank has largely denied this, citing various sections of the RTI Act, 2005. This case highlights the ongoing struggle for transparency and accountability within public sector undertakings.

The Information Sought and the Bank’s Response

The RTI application, directed to the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of Punjab National Bank, sought information on a point-by-point basis. Below is a breakdown of the queries, the bank’s denial, and the appellant’s submissions.

1. Posting Details of the Branch Manager

• Information Sought: The applicant requested the posting details of the Branch Manager of PNB Civil Lines, Bulandshahr, Akhilesh (Mobile: +917428025901, Email: bo0069@pnb.co.in), including the date of joining the circle and the branch.
• Denial by PNB: The CPIO, Kamal Kishor Thakur, denied the information, stating, “The information sought by you relates to personal information of a third party and since no involvement of larger public interest has been established the same cannot be provided in light of exemption under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
• Appellant’s Submission: The appellant countered that a branch manager is not a third party in this context. Their posting details are pertinent to the working of a public authority. The denial was termed “illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires to the provisions of the Right to Information Act 2005.”

2. Transfer Details of the Branch Manager

• Information Sought: The applicant sought the transfer details regarding the transfer of the branch manager within the circle.
• Denial by PNB: PNB denied the information because they assessed the query as “not covered under the definition of ‘Information’ u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.” Hence, they cannot provide it. They judged that the requester did not clearly and specifically make the information sought, hence it is, not covered u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
• Appellant’s Submission: The appellant argued that the CPIO must provide the transfer details. He claimed that they denied the request on “false flimsy ground because of corruption which forced them to live in fear psychosis.

3. Posting Details of Loan Section Staff

• Information Sought: The posting details of the staff in the loan section of the Bulandshahr R M Office.
• Denial by PNB: The CPIO denied this information, stating, “Information sought is not clear & specific, Hence not covered u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
• Appellant’s Submission: The appellant contended that the details were denied. This was because the staff has been “working on the same table for many years likewise branch manager and enjoying plum posting.”

4. Posting Details of the Loan Section’s Monitoring Head

• Information Sought: The name, designation, and posting details of the monitoring head of the loan section of the Bulandshahr R M Office.
• Denial by PNB: The denial was the same as for the previous point: “Information sought is not clear & specific, Hence not covered u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.”
• Appellant’s Submission: The appellant reiterated the claim that the denial was to conceal the fact. The monitoring head has been “working on the same table for many years likewise branch manager and enjoying plum posting.”

5-12. Non-Performing Assets (NPA) Data (2015-2023)

• Information Sought: The applicant requested the NPA data for the PNB Civil Lines, Bulandshahr branch. This was for the financial years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23.
• Denial by PNB: The CPIO stated, “We deny the information you sought under points 5 to 12, claiming that it is not available in the manner as requested. Collecting and compiling this information would disproportionately divert the bank’s resources. Therefore, we exempt it from disclosure under section 7 (9) of the RTI Act, 2005.”
• Appellant’s Submission: The appellant provided a counter-example of a similar RTI request to the Bank of India (Registration Number: BKOIN/R/E/22/00135) where the NPA data for a branch was provided. The appellant questioned whether providing such information had disproportionately diverted the resources of the Bank of India. The details of the Bank of India RTI response were as follows:
  • Registration Number: BKOIN/R/E/22/00135
  • Name: Yogi M P Singh
  • Received Date: 09/02/2022
  • Public Authority: Bank of India
  • Status: REQUEST DISPOSED OF
  • Date of action: 15/03/2022
  • Reply:
    1. NPA for 2015-16: Rs. 61910994.00
    2. NPA for 2016-17: Rs. 65010941.00
    3. NPA for 2017-18: Rs. 61825000.00
    4. NPA for 2018-19: Rs. 55450840.10
    5. NPA for 2019-20: Rs. 60116857.77
    6. NPA for 2020-21: Rs. 61467631.78
  • CPIO Details: VARANASI – TAPAN KUMAR MANDAL, Phone: 0542-2518478, Varanasi[dot]GOD[at]bankofindia[dot]co[dot]in

13. Information Availability under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act

• Information Sought: The applicant asked if the requested information is available under subsection 1(b) of section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005. This section mandates voluntary disclosure of information by public authorities. Why is PNB running away from providing posting details?

The applicant has requested the CPIO of Punjab National Bank to provide the posting information and loan within the stipulated time as prescribed under the RTI Act. This case is a significant example of a citizen using the RTI Act to demand transparency. They aim to hold a public authority accountable. The outcome of this appeal will be a noteworthy development in the ongoing discourse on the right to information in India.

Punjab National Bank is not disclosing any action taken regarding big defaulters like Nirav Modi, Vijay Mallya and Mehul Choksi

Chief manager of Punjab National Bank snatching house of a widow of army personnel illegally overlooking love of PM Sir to army personnel