Central Information Commission
Shashi Bhushan Mishra vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 24 March, 2020
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/LICOI/A/2018/152823-BJ
Mr. Shashi Bhushan Mishra
....अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Manager (CRM), LIC of India
CRM Department, Divisional Office
Jeevan Prakash Building, Post Box No. 41
Bistupur, Main Road
Jamshedpur - 831001, Jharkhand
...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 19.03.2020
Date of Decision : 20.03.2020
Date of RTI application 06.07.2018
CPIO's response 02.08.2018
Date of the First Appeal 02.08.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 09.08.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 28.08.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 15 points pertaining to his complaint and an RTI reply dated 20.06.2018; reasons for arriving at the conclusion that Mr. Ravi Prakash had done financial misappropriation and not an act of corruption fraudulent practice; whether as LIC policy faking policy documents and forging of premium payment certificate amounted to forgery or not, etc. Page 1 of 5 The CPIO, vide its letter dated 02.08.2018 provided a point wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 09.08.2018 upheld the response of the CPIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Shashi Bhushan Mishra through VC;
Respondent: Mr. Himanshu Bhushan Sahoo, Manager (CRM) and Mr. Apurba Banerjee, AO through VC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that no satisfactory information was provided to him, till date. Explaining the background of the matter, the Appellant submitted that one Mr. Ravi Prakash, a Development Officer of the Public Authority fraudulently duped him by misappropriating the premium paid by him through cheques issued in his own name and not in the name of the Public Authority against which he had also approached the Civil Judge, Jamshedpur which was presently sub-judice. He further submitted that he had filed representations before the higher authorities in the Public Authority including the CVO. However, no satisfactory action was taken in the matter, till date. The Appellant however desired a copy of the inquiry report on the basis of which action was taken against the erring official Mr. Ravi Prakash. In its reply, the Respondent while re-iterating the response of the CPIO/ FAA stated that based on the complaint made by the Appellant, disciplinary action was initiated against Mr. Ravi Prakash and he was removed from service on 16.12.2019. On being queried by the Commission whether the copy of the inquiry report was furnished to the Appellant who had also filed the complaint based on which action was taken, the Respondent replied in the negative but assured the Commission that the same shall be provided to him, if so directed by the Commission.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated Nil wherein it was inter alia stated that the CPIO had informed in detail vide letter dated 20.06.2018 while the FAA had upheld the decision of the CPIO on 17.07.2018.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"Page 2 of 5
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
The provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and various judgements on the subject matter clearly establishes that it is the duty of the CPIO to provide clear, cogent and precise response to the information seekers. Section 7 (8) (i) of the RTI Act, 2005 also states that where a request for disclosure of information is rejected, the CPIO shall communicate the reasons for such rejection. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 clearly stated that the PIO acts as the Pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act. The relevant extracts of the decision are as under:
" 7"it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has Page 3 of 5 sought information. The PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken".
The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act."
8.............The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non-disclosure."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Vivek Mittal v. B.P. Srivastava, W.P.(C) 19122/2006 dated 24.08.2009 had upheld the view of the CIC and observed that ".....The Act as framed, castes obligation upon the CPIOs and fixes responsibility in case there is failure or delay in supply of information. It is the duty of the CPIOs to ensure that the provisions of the Act are fully complied with and in case of default, necessary consequences follow".
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain vs Union of India, LPA No. 369/2018, dated 29.08.2018, held as under:
"9................................ That apart, the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only."
The Commission also noted that it should be the endeavour of the CPIO to ensure that maximum assistance should be provided to the RTI applicants to ensure the flow of information. In this context, the Commission referred to the OM No.4/9/2008-IR dated 24.06.2008 issued by the DoP&T on the Subject "Courteous behavior with the persons seeking information under the RTI Act, 2005" wherein it was stated as under:
"The undersigned is directed to say that the responsibility of a public authority and its public information officers (PIO) is not confined to furnish information but also to provide necessary help to the information seeker, wherever necessary."
The Commission observed that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Kamal Bhasin v. Radha Krishna Mathur and Ors., W.P.(C) 7218/2016 dated 01.11.2017 had held as under:
"6. In the present case, the petitioner stands as a relator party as he is also one of the complainants. The petitioner is not seeking any personal information regarding respondent No. 3, but merely seeks to know the outcome of the complaint made by him and other such complaints.....................
11 In the circumstances, this Court directs the respondent to disclose to the petitioner as to what action had been taken pursuant to his complaint and other similar complaints made against the then CMD. The petitioner would not be entitled to any notings and deliberations of the Group of Officers or Disciplinary Authority but only information as to what action was taken in relation to the complaints in question."Page 4 of 5
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the decisions cited above, the Commission instructs the Respondent to provide a copy of the inquiry report to the Appellant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, as agreed.
Moreover, although technically redressal of grievance does not fall within the purview of the RTI Act, 2005, the Commission in the light of the larger public interest of the policy holders, advises the Respondent Public Authority to examine the grievance of the Appellant as per extant policy guidelines and redress the same appropriately so that such malafide acts do not recur in future.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (नबमल जुल्का) (Chief Information Commissioner) (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) (K.L. Das) (के .एल.िास) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535/ [email protected] दिनांक / Date: 20.03.2020 Copy to:
1. The Chairman, L.I.C. of India, Central Office, 'Yogakshema', Nariman Point, Mumbai-
400021 (with the advice to examine this glaring irregularity through the appropriate channels).
Page 5 of 5