Central Information Commission
Shri V.A.S. Rama Raju vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 26 June, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000372
Dated, the 26th June, 2009.
Appellant : Shri V.A.S. Rama Raju
Respondents : Life Insurance Corporation of India
This matter was heard on 24.06.2009 pursuant to Commission's notice dated 21.05.2009. Appellant was present through his rep., Shri B.B. Pradhan. Respondents were represented by Shri P.S.N. Rao, Manager (CRM) & CPIO.
2. After hearing both parties and, perusing the records submitted by them, the following directions are issued:-
3. Appellant, through his RTI-application dated 01.04.2008, requested for two Enquiry Reports, i.e. one by Shri P.M.J. Babu, former Revenue Divisional Officer of Srikakulam and second, by Branch Manager, LIC of India, Srikakulam. On the basis of these reports, the agency of the appellant was terminated by LIC officials.
4. I would have really wanted that the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer should have been obtained by the appellant from the District Collector, Srikakulam, to whom it was originally submitted. But since the procedure will lengthen the appellant's wait and complicate the process of acquisition of information, it is just and proper that this report as found in the records of the respondents, viz. LIC of India, be considered for disclosure under the RTI Act.
5. The Report of the Branch Manager, LIC of India, Srikakulam is already in the control of the public authority.
6. It is my view that these are eminently disclosable on account of the fact that these constituted the basis on which the public authority acted to terminate the agency of the appellant. There is no reason why such a crucial evidence which helped respondents make a decision be withheld from the appellant.
7. Respondents pointed out that these reports contained several references to the sources of information on which the conclusions were AT-26062009-11.doc Page 1 of 2 based. Disclosure of the names of witnesses, officials consulted, and other sources of information to the enquiry officers would expose to risk all those who were consulted during the process of enquiry and would compromise their trust in the public authority keeping confidential the evidence given by them. Respondents claimed that they were bound to honour the commitment given to such witnesses and officials consulted that they would not be exposed.
8. In view of these submissions, it is directed that the two reports mentioned by the appellant be transmitted to him by the respondents after severing from the body of the reports under Section 10(1) of the RTI Act, all such details which would have the effect of disclosing names and identities of witnesses, sources of information ⎯ whether official or non-official, etc.
9. This may be done within two weeks of the receipt of this order.
10. Appeal disposed of with these directions.
11. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI ) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AT-26062009-11.doc Page 2 of 2