Relocation of Office
The appellant sought to know why the Punjab National Bank (PNB) returned a particular cheque unpaid with a reason insufficient funds. The CIC observed that the respondent has shown callous and unprofessional attitude both while representing during the hearing as well as dealing the RTI application. The CIC held that the respondent may not evade their responsibility as a public authority on the pretext of relocation of their office in addition to the lapse of over two years. A show cause notice was issued to the PIOs to show cause as to why penalty under provisions of section 20 (1) of RTI Act may not be imposed upon each of them for not responding to the RTI application within the prescribed time limit.
It is the duty of the PIO to maintain a professional behaviour and follow the provisions of the RTI Act. Relocation of the Office cannot be used as a ground for denial of information.
Citation: Lopamudra Chatterjee v. Punjab National Bank in Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2018/130662, Date of order: 12.05.2020
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Check Also
Back to top button