CIC Anandi Ramalingam says posting detail of branch manager of Punjab National Bank is personal information. Anandi Ramalingam’s order clearly indicates that protecting such information is crucial. Obviously, he will stick at the place many more years using his corrupt approach as done earlier.

Now posting details, CPIOs will not reveal which concerns working of public authorities. In the light of it, Employees will remain in the same place for many years. This allows them to create various tricks to increase back door income.

Central public information officer may provide the posting details of the following branch manager whose details are as follows.

Branch – PNB Civil lines, Bulandshahr, Branch Manager – Akhilesh, Mobile no- +917428025901 and Branch Office mail-bo0069@pnb.co.in

This information must include the date of joining to the circle and concerned branch as mentioned above.

Whether it is entire posting details.

No, this is not a request for “complete posting details.”

Here is a breakdown of why:

1. Your Request is Specific and Limited: You have asked for two very specific pieces of information concerning the manager’s current role:
   • The date of joining the Circle.
   • The date of joining the concerned branch (PNB Civil Lines, Bulandshahr).
2. “Complete Posting Details” is Broader: A request for “complete posting details” is broader. It means a request for the entire service history of the employee. The request is for the entire service history of the employee. This request covers the period since they joined the bank. This would include:
   • Date of first appointment in Punjab National Bank.
   • A list of every branch, office, or department the manager has ever been posted to.
   • The start and end dates for each of those postings.

CIC Upholds PNB’s Decision: A Case Study on RTI Exemptions for Personal Data and Resource Diversion

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, is a powerful tool for transparency, but its application is not without limits. A recent decision by the Central Information Commission (CIC) in the case of Yogi MP Singh v. Punjab National Bank highlights key exemptions. Public authorities can invoke these exemptions about employee privacy. They can also consider the practical constraints of information collation.

This blog post breaks down the case. It covers everything from the starting RTI application to the final verdict. The post offers insights into the workings of the RTI Act.

The Information Sought: A Mix of Personnel and Financial Data

On August 8, 2023, the appellant, Yogi MP Singh, filed an RTI application. He was seeking a wide range of information from the Punjab National Bank (PNB) in Bulandshahr. The queries can be broadly categorized into two main areas:

1. Employee Posting and Transfer Details:

• The entire posting history, including joining dates, of a specific Branch Manager named Akhilesh at the PNB Civil Lines branch.
• Transfer details of the same Branch Manager if he had been moved.
• Posting details of all staff members in the loan section of the Bulandshahr RM Office.
• The name, designation, and posting details of the monitoring head for the same loan section.

2. Branch-Specific Financial Data:

• A year-by-year breakdown of the Non-Performing Assets (NPA) is provided for the PNB Civil Lines branch. This includes data for eight consecutive financial years, from 2015-16 to 2022-23.

Finally, the applicant asked whether the bank should have disclosed this information voluntarily. This inquiry was made under Section 4 of the RTI Act.

The Bank’s Response: Citing Key RTI Exemptions

The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of PNB responded on August 24, 2023. They denied most of the information sought. They invoked specific sections of the RTI Act.

• On Employee Details (Points i-iv): The CPIO refused to provide the posting and transfer details. They classified it as “personal information of a third party.” The response cited Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. This section exempts the disclosure of personal information. Such information has no relationship to any public activity or interest. The CPIO noted that the appellant failed to establish any “larger public interest” that would justify its disclosure. Furthermore, some queries were unclear. Others were in the form of a question. They are not covered under the definition of ‘Information’ in Section 2(f) of the Act.
• On NPA Data (Points v-xii): The bank invoked Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. They used it to deny the extensive NPA data requested. This section states that information shall not be provided if its disclosure would “disproportionately divert the resources.” It mentions the resources of the public authority. The CPIO explained that the requested data was not readily available in the specified format. Compiling it for eight financial years would place an unreasonable burden on the bank’s resources.
• On Suo Motu Disclosure (Point xiii): For the final point, the CPIO provided guidance. The appellant was directed to visit the bank’s official website. The website is pnbindia.in, where information under the RTI Act is proactively disclosed.

The Appeal Process and Final CIC Verdict

Dissatisfied with the CPIO’s reply, the appellant filed a First Appeal on September 5, 2023. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) later dismissed this appeal on September 30, 2023. The FAA upheld the CPIO’s initial response.

Thus, the appellant escalated the matter to the Central Information Commission with a Second Appeal on November 7, 2023. The hearing was held over a year later, on December 9, 2024.

The final order, delivered by Hon’ble Commissioner Anandi Ramalingam on December 12, 2024, brought the matter to a close. The Commission made two critical observations:

1. The CPIO had provided an “appropriate reply” that was consistent with the provisions of the RTI Act.
2. The appellant was absent during the hearing and therefore could not plead his case or contest the bank’s submissions.

Given these circumstances, particularly the appellant’s absence, the Commission found “no scope of intervention in the matter.”

Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed.

Key Takeaways from the Decision

This case serves as an important reminder of the nuances of the RTI Act:

• The Personal Information Barrier: Section 8(1)(j) is a significant safeguard for the privacy of individuals. It is especially important for government and public sector employees. Unless there is a clear demonstration of a compelling larger public interest, details like posting history are exempt from disclosure. Transfer records are often exempt as well.
• The Practicality Clause: Section 7(9) acknowledges that public authorities have limited resources. RTI applicants can’t expect officials to create or compile new datasets if doing so would be disproportionately resource-intensive. It is often more effective to ask for information in the format it is already maintained.
• The Importance of Participation: The appellant’s absence at the final hearing was a crucial factor in the dismissal. Attending the hearing provides an opportunity to argue the case. It helps form public interest. It also allows for countering the points made by the public authority.

In conclusion, the RTI Act champions transparency. Yet, this case demonstrates that it operates within a framework. This framework balances transparency with individual privacy and the practical limitations of public bodies.

Punjab National Bank may provide information concerning non-performing assets of bank

Kamal Kishor Thakur, C.P.I.O. Punjab National Bank denied 13 points information to conceal corruption in working of PNB Bulandshahr