Withdrawal of money using forged signature

The complainant sought details of action taken on a complaint of withdrawal of money from bank account using forged signature and using ATM. Dissatisfied with the response received from the PIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA did not pass any order. The Commission observed that the respondent furnished point-wise reply, however, both the parties remained absent during the hearing, despite hearing notices having been served upon them. The CIC took a serious note of the absence of the PIO during the hearing without prior intimation and directed to submit written explanations citing reasons for their absence during the hearing before the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order. In view of the absence of both the parties and the matter not being pressed for, the Commission found no scope for further intervention in the matter and dismissed the dismissed.


A PIO should not abstain from hearing without prior intimation lest a show cuase notice is served for imposing penalty under section 20.


Citation: Heera Shauharat v. Punjab National Bank, Complaint No. CIC/PNBNK/C/2022/141431; Date of Decision: 01.02.2024

Dr Anuradha Verma ( is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link

Send Feedback

More Forum News
Load more