HARINDER DHINGRA Vs. CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE seven files contain appeals/complaints filed by the Appellant/Complainant regarding delayed response to seven RTI applications, all dated 16.1.2013, filed by him to various branches of the Respondent Bank, seeking information on seven points regarding ATM operations. In all cases, Shri Arjun Sethi, Assistant General Manager and PIO in the New Delhi Zonal office of the bank responded on 4.3.2013. He provided information on point No. 1 of the RTI applications. Regarding points No. 2 to 7, he stated that the Respondents were trying to obtain the required information from the concerned branches and it would be forwarded to the Appellant/Complainant "within a short period of time." The Appellant filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority in all cases. On 22.5.2013, Shri A. R.K. Prasad, Deputy General Manager and Appellate Authority responded in all seven cases to provide the information on points No. 2 to 7. Though appeals to the FAA were filed between 3.4.2013 to 10.4.2013, in his letter dated 22.5.2013, the FAA stated that the appeals were received by him on 22.4.2013.

(2.) THE Appellant/Complainant has approached the Commission in all the cases, praying that a penalty be imposed on the CPIO for the delay in responding to his RTI applications. The Appellant has stated that his RTI applications dated 16.1.2013 were received by the CPIO on 20.1.2013 and information on six of the seven points was provided to him by the FAA vide his letter dated 22.5.2013.

(3.) IN response to our query, Shri Ramesha J. S., AGM stated that Shri Arjun Sethi, AGM was the PIO in the Zonal Office in New Delhi, when the RTI applications were received. He further submitted that Shri Sethi was PIO till 30.4.2014 and has since retired from the service of the bank. Since no satisfactory explanation has been given to us for the delay in responding to the RTI applications, we have decided to enquire further into this matter. In terms of the power vested in us under Section 18(3) of the RTI Act, we direct Shri Arjun Sethi, former Assistant General Manager and PIO to appear before us on 10th November, 2014 at 10.00 a.m. at Room No. 305, Second Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066, to explain why he should not be penalised in terms of the provisions of sub -section 1 of Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 for his failure to provide information in response to the seven RTI applications within the time -frame stipulated in the said Act.