Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

Case Nos. CIC/MP/A/2015/000494, CIC/MP/A/2015/000495, CIC/MP/A/2015/000496 and CIC/MP/A/2015/000540. Case: B.K. Bhaskar Vs Punjab National Bank. Central Information Commission

Document Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case Number:Case Nos. CIC/MP/A/2015/000494, CIC/MP/A/2015/000495, CIC/MP/A/2015/000496 and CIC/MP/A/2015/000540
Party Name:B.K. Bhaskar Vs Punjab National Bank
Counsel:For Appellant: Party-in-Person and For Respondents: Ved Prakash Saxena, Chief Manager (Party-in-Person)
Judges:Manjula Prasher, Information Commissioner
Issue:Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 8(1), 8(1)(e), 8(1)(h), 8(1)(j)
Judgement Date:September 25, 2015
Court:Central Information Commission

Court Information Central Information Commission Cases
Judgment Date 25-Sep-2015
Party Details B.K. Bhaskar Vs Punjab National Bank
Case No Case Nos. CIC/MP/A/2015/000494, CIC/MP/A/2015/000495, CIC/MP/A/2015/000496 and CIC/MP/A/2015/000540
Judges Manjula Prasher, Information Commissioner
Advocates For Appellant: Party-in-Person and For Respondents: Ved Prakash Saxena, Chief Manager (Party-in-Person)
Acts Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 8(1), 8(1)(e), 8(1)(h), 8(1)(j)

Decision:

Manjula Prasher, Information Commissioner

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/000494:

1. The appellant Shri B.K. Bhaskar submitted RTI application dated 24.09.2014 to the Central Public Information Officer, Punjab National Bank, Bulandshahr stating that during his tenure as Chief Manager there had been some irregularities which were summarized in the charge sheet dated 29.11.2012 and a supplementary charge sheet dated 24.6.2013 issued to him by the Disciplinary Authority (DA), PNB, HO, New Delhi. Both these charge sheets had been based mainly on the inspection/investigation report dated 20.04.2012 conducted by Shri M.L. Sharma, Internal Senior Auditor. In his case the DA had recommended the penalty of dismissal under Regulation 4(j) of D & A Regulations 1977 vide order dated 21.7.2014. He stated that he had to prefer an appeal under Regulation 17 of D&A Regulations 1977. In this connection he wanted the copies of charge sheet in each case from S. No. 1 to 14 (except Sl. No. 9 in which the appellant's name future); copy of final order under Regulation 7 of D&A Regulations or otherwise as passed by the respective Disciplinary Authorities from S. No. 1 to 14 except S. No. 9; to whom charge sheet was not issued from S. No. 1 to 14 except S. No. 9. The names of other thirteen erring officials were Shri Bharat Singh, Shri V.K. Gupta, Shri D.K. Sahi, Shri D.K. Saxena, Shri P.K. Roy, Shri S.K. Sehgal, Shri S.S. Dahiya, Shri A.K. Sharma, Shri Dheeraj Saharia, Shri K.C. Sharma, Shri S.K. Juneja, Shri N.K. Girdhar & Shri Raman Kant.

1.2. The CPIO vide letter dated 20.10.2014 denied the information under the provisions of Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 17.11.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA had not adjudicated on appellant's first appeal.

1.3. Thereafter the appellant filed the present appeal before the Commission on 12.01.2015.

Case...

To continue reading

Request your trial