Central Information Commission
Tarlochan Singh vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd. on 20 July, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 305, 3rd Floor, CIC Bhavan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka,
New Delhi-110067, website:cic.gov.in
Appeal/Complaint No.:-CIC/NIACL/A/2017/127442-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/A/2017/127443-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/A/2017/127444-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/A/2017/127445-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/A/2017/127447-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/A/2017/127448-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/A/2017/127449-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/A/2017/127451-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/A/2017/127454-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/A/2017/127455-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/A/2017/127456-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/A/2017/127457-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/A/2017/127458-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/A/2017/127459-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/A/2017/127462-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/A/2017/127463-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/A/2017/132325-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/A/2017/132326-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/A/2017/132327-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/A/2017/132328-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/A/2017/132329-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/A/2017/132330-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/A/2017/132320-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/A/2017/132321-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/A/2017/132322-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/A/2017/132323-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/A/2017/132324-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/A/2017/134119-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/A/2017/134332-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/A/2017/134331-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/A/2017/134330-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/A/2017/134329-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/A/2017/134326-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/A/2017/134327-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/C/2017/147596-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/C/2017/148379-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/C/2017/148383-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/C/2017/148382-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/C/2017/148381-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/C/2017/148380-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/A/2017/175928-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/A/2017/175995-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/A/2017/175996-BJ
+CIC/NIACL/A/2017/175994-BJ
Page 1 of 27
Appellant : Mr. Tarlochan Singh
Respondent : 1- CPIO and Manager,
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Regional Office: 4th Floor Surya Tower,
108, The Mall, Ludhiana - 141001
2- FAA & General Manager
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Head Office, The New India Assurance Bldg.,
87-M.G. Marg, Fort,
Mumbai - 400001
Date of Hearing : 12.07.2018 & 19.07.2018
Date of Decision : 20.07.2018
ORDER
RTI-1: CIC/NIACL/A/2017/127442-BJ Date of RTI application 29.12.2016 CPIO's response 28.02.2017 Date of the First Appeal 03.03.2017 First Appellate Authority's response Not on record Date of diarised receipt of Second Appeal by the 26.04.2017 Commission FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 07 points regarding whether the Audit Department conducting audit of the concerned department informed them about the discrepancies found in the audit, whether the audit department informed the CRM/ DRM Department about its report or whether it report was only provided to the Central Office only, whether activities were carried out by the audit department in co-ordination with the vigilance office and issues related thereto.
The CPIO vide its letter dated 28.02.2017 stated that queries raised in the RTI application did not fall within the purview of the definition of information u/s 2
(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's reply the Appellant approached the FAA on the ground that a detailed reply with supporting documents was not provided to him. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
RTI-2: CIC/NIACL/A/2017/127443-BJ Date of RTI application 06.02.2017 CPIO's response 07.03.2017 Date of the First Appeal 16.03.2017 First Appellate Authority's response Not on record Date of diarised receipt of Second Appeal by the 26.04.2017 Page 2 of 27 Commission FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 05 points regarding the basis of appointing a retired officer as an investigator in the Company, period from the date of retirement of an officer within which he could be appointed as an investigator and issues related thereto.
The CPIO vide its letter dated 07.03.2017 provided a point wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's reply, the Appellant approached the FAA on the ground that a detailed reply with supporting documents was not provided to him and that the relevant manual with regard to point no. 01 and
02 was not provided. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
RTI-3: CIC/NIACL/A/2017/127444-BJ Date of RTI application 30.01.2017 CPIO's response 09.03.2017 Date of the First Appeal 16.03.2017 First Appellate Authority's response Not on record Date of diarised receipt of Second Appeal by the 26.04.2017 Commission FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points regarding the details of deputation of various class of officers who were appointed during the tenure of Mr. R. K. Malhotra (Officiating or CRM) alongwith the details of exigencies for appointing them, date on which the tenure of 03 years of such officers/ employees expired and issues related thereto.
The CPIO vide its letter dated 09.03.2017 provided a point wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's reply, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
RTI-4: CIC/NIACL/A/2017/127445-BJ Date of RTI application 01.02.2017 CPIO's response 01.03.2017 Date of the First Appeal 03.03.2017 First Appellate Authority's response Not on record Date of diarised receipt of Second Appeal by the 26.04.2017 Commission FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information under 06 points regarding criteria for appointment of Micro office in-charge, basis of re-appointment for the post of Micro In-charge subsequent to the transfer of concerned officer and issues related thereto.
Page 3 of 27The CPIO vide its letter dated 01.03.2017 provided a point wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's reply on each of the points, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
RTI-5: CIC/NIACL/A/2017/127447-BJ Date of RTI application 20.02.2017 CPIO's response 09.03.2017 Date of the First Appeal 16.03.2017 First Appellate Authority's response Not on record Date of diarised receipt of Second Appeal by the 26.04.2017 Commission FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 11 points regarding the manner of determination of Entry limit at the time of promotion from the post of Assistant to Sr. Assistant, details regarding postings of Assistant in Micro Office and issues related thereto.
The CPIO vide its letter dated 09.03.2017 provided a point wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's reply, the Appellant approached the FAA on the ground that a detailed reply with supporting documents was not provided. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
RTI-6: CIC/NIACL/A/2017/127448-BJ Date of RTI application 13.02.2017 CPIO's response 09.03.2017 Date of the First Appeal 16.03.2017 First Appellate Authority's response Not on record Date of diarised receipt of Second Appeal by the 26.04.2017 Commission FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 08 points regarding circulars/ documents relating to printing of Printing Stationary, circular regarding manner in which numbered stationary ought to be provided to Divisional Office and issues related thereto.
The CPIO vide its letter dated 09.03.2017 provided a point wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's reply, the Appellant approached the FAA on the ground that no detailed reply with annexing documents was provided to him. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
RTI-7: CIC/NIACL/A/2017/127449-BJ
Date of RTI application 17.02.2017
CPIO's response 09.03.2017
Date of the First Appeal 16.03.2017
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Page 4 of 27
Date of diarised receipt of Second Appeal by the 26.04.2017
Commission
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 08 points regarding employees eligible for receiving the Cash Handling Allowance, basis on which the Cash Handling Allowance was paid to employees after their promotion and transfer and issues related thereto.
The CPIO vide its letter dated 09.03.2017 provided a point wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's reply the Appellant approached the FAA on the ground that a detailed reply annexing documents was not provided to him. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
RTI-8: CIC/NIACL/A/2017/127451-BJ Date of RTI application 20.02.2017 CPIO's response 09.03.2017 Date of the First Appeal 16.03.2017 First Appellate Authority's response Not on record Date of diarised receipt of Second Appeal by the 26.04.2017 Commission FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 09 points regarding the language in which orders of the company were required to be prepared, language in which most of the orders sent to employees of any branch/ divisional office under the Regional Office were prepared for the period from January 2012 to December, 2016 and issues related thereto.
The CPIO vide its letter dated 09.03.2017, provided a point wise reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any detailed reply enclosing documents, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
RTI-9: CIC/NIACL/A/2017/127454-BJ
Date of RTI application 20.02.2017
CPIO's response 06.03.2017 and
09.03.2017
Date of the First Appeal 16.03.2017
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of diarised receipt of Second Appeal by the 26.04.2017
Commission
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 12 points regarding the basis of procurement of Printing Stationary, criteria adopted by the Branch Office/ Division Office for demand of Printing Stationary, the norms adopted by the Audit Department to inquire into the issues relating to Printing Stationary and associated matters.
Page 5 of 27The CPIO vide its letter dated 09.03.2017, provided a point-wise response to the Appellant, enclosing a copy of letter dated 22.02.2017, informing him that the information sought by the Appellant was not available with them. However, as regards point no. 03, 07 and 09, it was stated that the information sought was not available with them. Subsequently, vide letter dated 06.03.2017, a response was provided on point no. 03, 07 and 09. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's reply, the Appellant approached the FAA primarily on the ground that it was devoid of any seal and that the annexed documents were not signed. Furthermore, it was stated that sufficient documents were not sent with the reply. The Order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
RTI-10: CIC/NIACL/A/2017/127455-BJ Date of RTI application 17.02.2017 CPIO's response 09.03.2017 Date of the First Appeal 16.03.2017 First Appellate Authority's response Not on record Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 26.04.2017 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 12 points regarding the time and manner in which Transfer Grant were paid, details of Transfer/ Deputation made in the Regional Office, Ludhiana and Branch offices under it for the period from January 2012 to December 2016, details of officers transferred/ deputed who had received Transfer Grant and issues related thereto.
The CPIO vide its letter dated 09.03.2017, provided a point wise response to the Appellant denying information on point no. 02, u/s 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the reply of CPIO on all points except on points 04 and 06, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
RTI-11: CIC/NIACL/A/2017/127456-BJ Date of RTI application 17.02.2017 CPIO's response 09.03.2017 Date of the First Appeal 16.03.2017 First Appellate Authority's response Not on record Date of diarised receipt of Second Appeal by the 26.04.2017 Commission FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 08 points regarding the documents containing the details of the priority of the Respondent Organisation relating to Social Welfare activities, circulars regarding festival advance or any other facility (PF Loan, Non Refundable PF Loan, etc) provided to the workers/officers and issues related thereto.
The CPIO vide its letter dated 09.03.2017 provided a point wise response to the Appellant informing him on all points except point no. 03 that the information sought was not part of their record. As regards point no 03, details of the Page 6 of 27 Festival Advance deposited in the Appellant's account was provided. However, for query seeking reasons, it was stated that the same did not fall within the purview of definition of information. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's reply the Appellant approached the FAA primarily stating that each of his points were not replied with supporting documents. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
RTI-12: CIC/NIACL/A/2017/127457-BJ Date of RTI application 14.02.2017 CPIO's response 09.03.2017 Date of the First Appeal 16.03.2017 First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 26.04.2017 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 08 points regarding the authority that proposes and approves the allocation of staff in the branch and regional offices, the authority that determines the number of staff required, rules and regulations that determine the number as well as category of staff (Asst., Sr. Asstt., AO, AM, Dy. Manager), and other issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 09.03.2017 enclosed the letter received from the Human Resources and Training Departments wherein point-wise reply had been provided in relation to the information sought in the RTI application. Dissatisfied by the CPIO's response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA's order, if any is not on record of the Commission.
RTI-13: CIC/NIACL/A/2017/127458-BJ Date of RTI application 13.02.2017 CPIO's response 09.03.2017 Date of the First Appeal 16.03.2017 First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 26.04.2017 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 10 points regarding the criterion used to assess the employees' work, name of employees/officers who have been issued notices for not working in the last five years, criterion for assessment of SSF, and other related matters.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 09.03.2017 stated that the point-wise reply as received from the Human Resources Department had been enclosed and sent to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the CPIO's response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA's order, if any is not on record of the Commission.
RTI-14: CIC/NIACL/A/2017/127459-BJ
Date of RTI application 13.02.2017
CPIO's response 09.03.2017
Page 7 of 27
Date of the First Appeal 16.03.2017
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 26.04.2017
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 07 points regarding the budget of the stationery items, authority that proposes and approves the use of these items, and other guidelines related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 09.03.2017 enclosed the letter received from the Printing & Stationery Department wherein, it was stated that the information sought by the Appellant was not available with them. Dissatisfied by the CPIO's response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA's order, if any is not on record of the Commission.
RTI-15: CIC/NIACL/A/2017/127462-BJ Date of RTI application 13.02.2017 CPIO's response 09.03.2017 Date of the First Appeal 16.03.2017 First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 26.04.2017 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 10 points regarding the details of the allocation of computer equipments, printer etc., rules pertaining to the allocation of personal and shared printers, authority that regulates the allocation of equipments, and other issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 09.03.2017 provided a point-wise reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the CPIO's response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA's order, if any is not on record of the Commission.
RTI-16: CIC/NIACL/A/2017/127463-BJ Date of RTI application 17.02.2017 CPIO's response 09.03.2017 Date of the First Appeal 16.03.2017 First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 26.04.2017 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 11 points regarding the details of the open canteen in the regional office, basis for deciding/fixing annual bid for the canteen in regional office, names of the members of the canteen committee, and other related matters.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 09.03.2017 enclosed the letter of the Establishment Department wherein, point-wise reply had been provided. Dissatisfied by the CPIO's response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA's order, if any is not on record of the Commission.
Page 8 of 27
RTI-17: CIC/NIACL/A/2017/132325-BJ
Date of RTI application 03.03.2017
CPIO's response 30.03.2017
Date of the First Appeal 31.03.2017
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 15.05.2017
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 06 points regarding the details of employees who have been appointed in the Divisional Office from January 2014 to December 2016, criteria for selection of the aforementioned employees, details of the officer who had proposed and approved the appointment of the said employees, and other issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 30.03.2017 enclosed the letter received from Human Resources Department wherein, point-wise reply had been provided. Dissatisfied by the CPIO's response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA's order, if any is not on record of the Commission.
RTI-18: CIC/NIACL/A/2017/132326-BJ Date of RTI application 14.03.2017 CPIO's response 30.03.2017 Date of the First Appeal 31.03.2017 First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 15.05.2017 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 09 points regarding the details of employees who have been provided the company flats from January 2005 to March 2017, details of any repair work etc. done in such flats during the abovementioned period, and other issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 30.03.2017 enclosed the letter received from the Establishment Department wherein, point-wise response had been provided to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the CPIO's response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA's order, if any is not on record of the Commission.
RTI-19: CIC/NIACL/A/2017/132327-BJ Date of RTI application 24.02.2017 CPIO's response 27.03.2017 Date of the First Appeal 31.03.2017 First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 15.05.2017 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 08 points regarding the basis on which the annual income of the officers/employees were computed for the purpose of calculation of income tax, whether the daily Page 9 of 27 vouchers and travel allowances would be included in the income of the employees, and other related matters.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 27.03.2017 enclosed the copy of emails received from the concerned Departments. As regards point nos. 01, 02, and 04, point- wise reply was provided by the Salary Department via email dated14.03.2017. Further, in relation to point nos. 05-07, the Accounts Department had provided a point-wise reply via email dated 24.03.2017 and for point no. 08, it was stated that no information was available with them. Dissatisfied by the CPIO's response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA's order, if any is not on record of the Commission.
RTI-20: CIC/NIACL/A/2017/132328-BJ Date of RTI application 28.02.2017 CPIO's response 27.03.2017 Date of the First Appeal 31.03.2017 First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 15.05.2017 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 15 points regarding the details pertaining to the damage caused to the furniture due to rats menace from January 2010 to February 2017, letters of complaint written to the Manager, Chief Regional Manager/ Deputy General Manager in relation to the abovementioned matter, and other issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 27.03.2017 enclosed the letter received from the concerned authority wherein it was stated that the information sought by the Appellant was not available with them. Dissatisfied by the CPIO's response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA's order, if any is not on record of the Commission.
RTI-21: CIC/NIACL/A/2017/132329-BJ Date of RTI application 07.03.2017 CPIO's response 30.03.2017 Date of the First Appeal 31.03.2017 First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 15.05.2017 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 14 points regarding the quotations invited by the Establishment Department from April 2016 - February 2017 to install fans, pipes and other fixtures etc. in the company's flats, whether the aforementioned items were repaired or replaced in case of any damage, and other related matters.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 30.03.2017 enclosed the information as received from the Establishment Department wherein, it was stated that the required information was not available with them. Dissatisfied by the CPIO's response, Page 10 of 27 the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA's order, if any is not on record of the Commission.
RTI-22: CIC/NIACL/A/2017/132330-BJ Date of RTI application 01.03.2017 CPIO's response 24.03.2017 Date of the First Appeal 27.03.2017 First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 15.05.2017 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 06 points regarding the expenses incurred towards photocopy in the regional office from January 2010 to February 2017, details of photocopy shopkeepers, and other issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 24.03.2017 enclosed the letter received from the concerned authority wherein it was stated that the information sought by the Appellant was not available with them. Dissatisfied by the CPIO's response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA's order, if any is not on record of the Commission.
RTI-23: CIC/NIACL/A/2017/132320-BJ Date of RTI application 03.03.2017 CPIO's response 27.03.2017 Date of the First Appeal 31.03.2017 First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 15.05.2017 FACTS: The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information in 10 points regarding the direction issued by the Rajbhasha Department to any of the departments for the language used for customer services, action taken by the Rajbhasha Department for non-compliance of the said direction and issues related thereto.
The CPIO vide letter dated 27.03.2017 provided a point wise reply to the Appellant with enclosures. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
RTI-24: CIC/NIACL/A/2017/132321-BJ
Date of RTI application 01.03.2017
CPIO's response 30.03.2017
Date of the First Appeal 31.03.2017
First Appellate Authority's response NIL
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 15.05.2017
Page 11 of 27
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 10 points relating to the details of the languages in which books were available in the Regional Office Library and issues related thereto.
The CPIO vide letter dated 30.03.2017 provided a point wise reply as endorsed by the Training & Rajbhasha Department. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
RTI-25: CIC/NIACL/A/2017/132322-BJ Date of RTI application 01.03.2017 CPIO's response 27.03.2017 Date of the First Appeal 31.03.2017 First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 15.05.2017 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 07 points seeking information about the TA/DA rules applicable to the newly recruited employees and details associated thereto.
The CPIO, vide letter dated 27.03.2017 enclosed the letter received from the Accounts' Department wherein a point-wise reply had been provided in relation to the information sought in the RTI application. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA's order, if any is not on record of the Commission.
RTI-26: CIC/NIACL/A/2017/132323-BJ Date of RTI application 28.02.2017 CPIO's response 24.03.2017 Date of the First Appeal 27.03.2017 First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 15.05.2017 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 10 points relating to the records of tour undertaken by the driver with CRM or any other officers, number of occasions on which the government vehicle was used by the Manager, Regional Manager and General Manager for official purposes from April 2012 to February 2017, number of times written order was given to the driver for the use of vehicle by the officials and issues related thereto.
The CPIO vide letter dated 24.03.2017 enclosed the letter received from the Regional Manager Secretariat wherein point-wise reply had been provided. Dissatisfied by the response the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA's order, if any is not on record of the Commission.
Page 12 of 27
RTI-27: CIC/NIACL/A/2017/132324-BJ
Date of RTI application 28.02.2017
CPIO's response 24.03.2017
Date of the First Appeal 27.03.2017
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 15.05.2017
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 06 points relating to the records of the date of installing of water cooler and R.O. in the canteen, the details of its periodic maintenance, guarantee and number of years for which it could be used, the records relating to the responsible authority for cleaning and water facilities in the canteen and other issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 24.03.2017 enclosed the letter received from the Establishment Department wherein a point-wise reply had been provided. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA's order, if any is not on record of the Commission.
RTI-28: CIC/NIACL/A/2017/134119-BJ Date of RTI application 08.03.2017 CPIO's response 30.03.2017 Date of the First Appeal 31.03.2017 First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 22.05.2017 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 10 points regarding the basis on which the flats were allotted by the Ludhiana Regional Office, records of the officers who were allotted flats from April 2011 to February 2017 alongwith their name, designation and the number of rooms in the flat, policy for allotment of flats to the Manager, Deputy Manager and Administrative Officer and issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 30.03.2017 enclosed the letter received from the Establishment Department wherein point-wise reply had been provided. Dissatisfied by the CPIOs response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA's order, if any is not on record of the Commission.
RTI-29: CIC/NIACL/A/2017/134332-BJ Date of RTI application 23.02.2017 CPIO's response 27.03.2017 Date of the First Appeal 07.04.2017 First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 23.05.2017 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 118 points inter alia regarding the preferred language used by the accounts examination department, number of cases solved by the Awareness Department from January 2012 to December 2016 and issues related thereto.
Page 13 of 27The CPIO, vide letter dated 27.03.2017 provided a point-wise response on several RTI queries to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA's order, if any is not on record of the Commission.
RTI-30: CIC/NIACL/A/2017/134331-BJ Date of RTI application 03.03.2017 CPIO's response 30.03.2017 Date of the First Appeal 07.04.2017 First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 23.05.2017 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 14 points regarding the records of total number of flats owned/possessed by the Regional Office Ludhiana, number of vacant/ occupied flats, number of flats in which R.O./Aquaguard was installed, facilities available to Class-III employees and issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 30.03.2017 enclosed the letter received from the Establishment Department wherein point-wise reply had been provided. Dissatisfied by the CPIOs response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA's order, if any is not on record of the Commission.
RTI-31: CIC/NIACL/A/2017/134330-BJ Date of RTI application 03.03.2017 CPIO's response 30.03.2017 Date of the First Appeal 07.04.2017 First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 23.05.2017 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 08 points regarding the modes/means for company's publicity done by the Regional Office, amount spent on publicity from February 2000 to 2017, annual bill report of the publicity done during the abovementioned period, the annual bill report of the publicity done by way of banner or boards and issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 30.03.2017 enclosed the letter received from the Establishment Department wherein point-wise reply had been provided in relation to the information sought in the RTI application. Dissatisfied by the CPIOs response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA's order, if any is not on record of the Commission.
RTI-32: CIC/NIACL/A/2017/134329-BJ
Date of RTI application 03.03.2017
CPIO's response 30.03.2017
Page 14 of 27
Date of the First Appeal 07.04.2017
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 23.05.2017
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 05 points regarding the rent record of the office building floor in the Regional Office , percentage of annual increase of rent in the office building floor, rules relating to the maintenance of the office building floor, and other issues relating thereto.
The CPIO vide letter dated 30.03.2017 provided a point-wise reply received from the Establishment Department to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA's order, if any is not on record of the Commission.
RTI-33: CIC/NIACL/A/2017/134326-BJ Date of RTI application 14.03.2017 CPIO's response 06.04.2017 Date of the First Appeal 07.04.2017 First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 23.05.2017 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 08 points relating to the Divisional Office Sangrur, name and designation of the officers along with the details of offices where the officers were transferred from April 2013 to July 2016, the records relating to the transfer grants of the officers for the abovementioned period and issues related thereto.
The CPIO vide letter dated 06.04.2017 provided a point-wise reply on points 05, 06 and 07 of the RTI application denying information on point no. 05 u/s 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAAs order, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
RTI-34: CIC/NIACL/A/2017/134327-BJ Date of RTI application 09.03.2017 CPIO's response 30.03.2017 Date of the First Appeal 07.04.2017 First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Second Appeal by the 23.05.2017 Commission FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information under 05 points regarding the details of installation of the water cooler inside the canteen of the Regional Office Ludhiana along with the photo of the bill, details of its cleaning and related issues.
Page 15 of 27The CPIO vide its letter dated 30.03.2017 provided a point wise response to the Appellant informing him that information on points 01 to 04 was not available/ not part of their record. As regards, point no. 05, certain details were provided. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's reply, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
RTI-35: CIC/NIACL/C/2017/147596-BJ Date of RTI application 06.02.2017 CPIO's response Not on record Date of the First Appeal Not on record First Appellate Authority's response Not on record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission 12.07.2017 FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information under 04 points regarding the details of the authority which could be approached to file a complaint against the Manager, Chief Regional Manager and Deputy General Manager regarding their inaction on his complaint, action that could be taken against the aforementioned officers for their inaction on complaint and issues related thereto.
Dissatisfied on not receiving any response from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI-36: CIC/NIACL/C/2017/148379-BJ Date of RTI application 20.04.2017 CPIO's response Not on record Date of the First Appeal Not on record First Appellate Authority's response Not on record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission 14.07.2017 FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information under 05 points regarding the mediclaim benefits provided to employees and the basis of providing such benefits with relevant documents and circulars, category wise mediclaim benefits provided to employees and issues related thereto.
Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI-37: CIC/NIACL/C/2017/148383-BJ Date of RTI application 20.04.2017 CPIO's response Not on record Date of the First Appeal Not on record First Appellate Authority's response Not on record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission 14.07.2017 FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information under 07 points regarding the details of establishment of Regional Office, Ludhiana, date on Page 16 of 27 which the office was upgraded with modern technology, the cost of such modernization and such related details.
Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI-38: CIC/NIACL/C/2017/148382-BJ Date of RTI application 20.04.2017 CPIO's response Not on record Date of the First Appeal Not on record First Appellate Authority's response Not on record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission 14.07.2017 FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information under 08 points regarding the details of the procedure for allotting the cash allowance, policy of cash allowance applicable immediately after promotion from the rank of employee to officer and issues related thereto.
Dissatisfied on not receiving any response from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI-39: CIC/NIACL/C/2017/148381-BJ Date of RTI application 20.04.2017 CPIO's response Not on record Date of the First Appeal Not on record First Appellate Authority's response Not on record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission 14.07.2017 FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information under 06 points regarding the details of benefits given to employees immediately after their retirement, period within which an employee was entitled to receive the benefit and issues related thereto.
Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI-40: CIC/NIACL/C/2017/148380-BJ Date of RTI application 20.04.2017 CPIO's response Not on record Date of the First Appeal Not on record First Appellate Authority's response Not on record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission 14.07.2017 FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information under 10 points regarding the details of all the physically challenged workers and officers of the Regional Office, Ludhiana with their names, designation and office details, their disability percentage and issues related thereto.
Page 17 of 27Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission.
RTI-41: CIC/NIACL/A/2017/175928-BJ Date of RTI application 01.05.2017 CPIO's response Not on record Date of the First Appeal 08.06.2017 First Appellate Authority's response Not on record Date of diarised receipt of Second Appeal by the 13.11.2017 Commission FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information under 04 points concerning the details of provision regarding transfer of officers by the Regional Office to Micro Branch at the time of their retirement, details of approval for transfers given by the Divisional Office-2, Patiala on 28.04.2017, the list of all the officers who were sent on the aforementioned date and issues related thereto.
Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The reply of the CPIO/ order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
RTI-42: CIC/NIACL/A/2017/175995-BJ Date of RTI application 16.05.2017 CPIO's response Not on record Date of the First Appeal 03.07.2017 First Appellate Authority's response Not on record Date of diarised receipt of Second Appeal by the 14.11.2017 Commission FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 06 points regarding the list of officers who were given HRA (House Rent Allowance) for the period from January 2001 to March 2017, details of HRA granted to officers for the period from January 1999 to March, 2007, etc. Dissatisfied on not receiving any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the Commission. The reply of the CPIO/ order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
RTI-43: CIC/NIACL/A/2017/175996-BJ Date of RTI application 16.05.2017 CPIO's response Not on record Date of the First Appeal 08.06.2017 First Appellate Authority's response Not on record Date of diarised receipt of Second Appeal by the 14.11.2017 Commission FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information under 06 points regarding the list of officers who were given HRA (House Rent Allowance) for Page 18 of 27 the period from January 2001 to March 2017, details of HRA granted to officers for the period from January 1999 to March, 2007, etc. Dissatisfied on not receiving any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the Commission. The reply of the CPIO/ order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
RTI-44: CIC/NIACL/A/2017/175994-BJ Date of RTI application Nil CPIO's response Not on record Date of the First Appeal 20.07.2017 First Appellate Authority's response Not on record Date of diarised receipt of Second Appeal by the 14.11.2017 Commission FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding the details of all the RTI Applications received by the Regional Office of Ludhiana from 29.12.2016 to 01.05.2017 and issues related thereto.
Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The reply of the CPIO/ order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present on 12.07.2017:
Appellant: Mr. Tarlochan Singh through VC;
Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Jindal, Manager & CPIO, Regional Office, Ludhiana and Mr. Surendra Bhatoa, Chief Regional Manager through VC;
The following were present on 19.07.2017:
Appellant/ Complainant: Mr. Tarlochan Singh through VC; Respondent: Mr. Renjit Gangadharan, General Manager, Mumbai; Dr. N. G. Srinivasan, DGM, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai; Mr. R. N. Chakrabarty, CPIO (HQ), Mumbai and Mr. Ashok Kumar Jindal, Manager & CPIO, Regional Office, Ludhiana; Mr. Surendra Bhatoa, Chief Regional Manager, Ludhiana and through VC;
The Appellant/ Complainant reiterated the contents of his RTI applications and stated that no satisfactory response was received by him in any of the matters listed above. While explaining that cyclostyled and non-reasoned response was provided by the CPIO, he submitted that the replies were not furnished with enclosures. It was also submitted that the queries raised by him were generic in nature relating to guidelines/ policies, etc which ought to have been suo motu disclosed by the Respondent Public Authority on its website. The Appellant/ Complainant however denied receipt of the FAA's order in any of the matters. Furthermore, with regard to the issues relating to allocation of budget, etc, it was submitted that the same should have been disclosed. On being queried regarding the larger public interest involved in filing the RTI Page 19 of 27 applications, the Appellant/ Complainant alleged wrongdoings and opaqueness in the functioning of the Public Authority and submitted that there ought to exist circular/ guidelines on various issues relating to conduct of activities by Audit Department, Procedure for appointment of Micro In-Charge, Procedure for transfer and promotion of employees, Purchase/ Allocation of Printing Stationery, Budget for Stationery Allowance, eligibility to receive Cash Handling Allowance, Transfer Grant, Festival Allowance, House Allotment Policy, which were the matters of larger public interest.
In its reply, the Respondent stated that all the information held and available with them was provided to the Appellant/ Complainant and that each of the 193 queries in all the RTI applications dealt during the hearing on 12.07.2018 and 258 queries dealt during the hearing on 19.07.2018 were responded point-
wise and that the information on 59 points and119 points dealt during the hearing on 12.07.2018 and 19.07.2018 respectively was provided. While alleging that the Appellant/ Complainant resorted to misuse of RTI application by filing multiple RTI applications seeking information on all and sundry matters, the Respondent also stated that most of the queries were hypothetical/ interpretative in nature and were drafted in question form which could not be replied as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Furthermore, it was stated that being an employee of the organisation, the Appellant/ Complainant was already aware/ informed about such issues and had purposefully resorted to using RTI mechanism in order to stifle the working of the Public Authority by seeking voluminous records causing disproportionate diversion of their scarce resources. On being queried, if the First Appeal in any of the matters under consideration was decided or not, the Respondent replied in the affirmative and stated that the First Appeals were decided in each of the matters and a copy of the order was also provided to the Appellant/ Complainant at the address mentioned in his first appeal. During the hearing, the Respondents (Mumbai and Ludhiana) stated that RTI applications and First Appeals in each of the matters heard on 19.07.2018 were responded on the dates mentioned below:
Sl. No. Appeal/ Complaint No. Date of CPIO Reply Date of FAA Order
1. CIC/NIACL/A/2017/132320-BJ Mentioned in Facts 16.05.2017
2. CIC/NIACL/A/2017/132321-BJ _______do_________ 16.05.2017
3. CIC/NIACL/A/2017/132322-BJ _______do_________ 16.05.2017
4. CIC/NIACL/A/2017/132323-BJ _______do_________ 30.04.2017
5. CIC/NIACL/A/2017/132324-BJ _______do_________ 12.04.2017
6. CIC/NIACL/A/2017/134119-BJ _______do_________ Not Available
7. CIC/NIACL/A/2017/134332-BJ _______do_________ 24.05.2017
8. CIC/NIACL/A/2017/134331-BJ _______do_________ 19.05.2017
9. CIC/NIACL/A/2017/134330-BJ _______do_________ Not Available
10. CIC/NIACL/A/2017/134329-BJ _______do_________ 19.05.2017
11. CIC/NIACL/A/2017/134326-BJ _______do_________ 22.05.2017
12. CIC/NIACL/A/2017/134327-BJ _______do_________ 22.05.2017
13. CIC/NIACL/C/2017/147596-BJ 07.03.2017 21.03.2017
14. CIC/NIACL/C/2017/148379-BJ 18.05.2017 FA Not Received
15. CIC/NIACL/C/2017/148383-BJ 17.05.2017 FA Not Received
16. CIC/NIACL/C/2017/148382-BJ 18.05.2017 FA Not Received
17. CIC/NIACL/C/2017/148381-BJ Not Available Not Available
18. CIC/NIACL/C/2017/148380-BJ 22.05.2017 FA Not Received
19. CIC/NIACL/A/2017/175928-BJ Mentioned in Facts 04.07.2017
20. CIC/NIACL/A/2017/175995-BJ _______do_________ 25.07.2017
21. CIC/NIACL/A/2017/175996-BJ _______do_________ 25.07.2017 Page 20 of 27
22. CIC/NIACL/A/2017/175994-BJ _______do_________ 31.08.2017 On being queried by the Commission in respect of the nature of grievances aired by him in each of these RTI applications before any other higher authority including the CMD, the Appellant/ Complainant submitted that even-though he made several representations, none of them were answered satisfactorily which compelled him to resort to the RTI mechanism.
The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 11.07.2018 wherein while explaining the background of the case, it was submitted that the Appellant was a sitting employee of their company posted in Ludhiana and he had submitted a number of applications from 29.12.2016 to 28.02.2017 seeking information/clarification/explanations in respect of 193 questions. Further, it was submitted that the information as available on their record i.e. on 59 points, had already been provided to the Appellant but 134 points of his applications had not been furnished as it was not existing/available on their record and also that the nature of question/query was outside the purview of the definition section 2(f) r.w.s. 2(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Furthermore, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBSE vs Aditya Bandyopadhyay, para 35 had been referred in support of their contention. It was also submitted that the Appellant being a sitting employee of the company, could have easily collected it from his own office instead of resorting to RTI applications thereby wasting his own and his office colleague's time and energy, which in no way was in the public interest. It was further informed that the Appellant had already submitted 100 applications out of which 60 applications had already been listed for the hearing (22 cases on 12.07.2018 and 38 cases on 19.07.2018). Moreover, the information sought was voluminous in nature, as it would require compilation of the data which would cause unwarranted and unnecessary diversion of scarce resources of their company. Therefore while submitting that they had made earnest effort to give as much information as possible, it was prayed before the Commission, to give the ruling upholding the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 and to prevent its misuse.
At today's hearing, the Commission received another written response from the Respondent vide its letter dated 17.07.2018 wherein while re-iterating their earlier written submission dated 11.07.2018, it was stated that the Appellant had filed a bunch of 21 applications from 06.02.2017 to 16.05.2017 seeking information/ clarifications/ explanation regarding 258 questions. Further, it was submitted that the information as available on their record i.e. on 119 points, had already been provided to the Appellant but 139 points of his applications had not been furnished as it was not existing/available on their record and also that the nature of question/query was outside the purview of the definition under section 2(f) r.w.s. 2(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. It was explained that he resorted to a flurry of 258 questions most of which were outside the scope of RTI Act, in the months of February and March when most of the office staff was busy in year-end closing for clearance of claims, premium procurement and accounts. A reference was also made to an application where he had raised 118 questions covering most of the departments to divert the attention of the whole office staff whose main jobs were claim clearance, premium procurement and statutory audit and no larger Page 21 of 27 public interest was involved in the matter. The Respondent further claimed that the questions asked were in the nature of queries demanding compilation of information which did not fall within the purview of the definition of "information" as per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the decision J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 while stating that the CPIO should not mechanically forward the information collected through subordinates, held as under that:
"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 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.
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. A responsible officer cannot escape his responsibility by saying that he depends on the work of his subordinates. The PIO has to apply his own mind independently and take the appropriate decision and cannot blindly approve / forward what his subordinates have done.
9. This Court in Mujibur Rehman Vs. Central Information Commission MANU/DE/0542/2009 held that information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for and are not to be driven away through filibustering tactics and it is to ensure a culture of information disclosure that penalty provisions have been provided in the RTI Act. The Act has conferred the duty to ensure compliance on the PIO. This Court in Vivek Mittal Vs. B.P. Srivastava MANU/DE/4315/2009 held that a PIO cannot escape his obligations and duties by stating that persons appointed under him had failed to collect documents and information; that the Act as framed casts obligation upon the PIO to ensure that the provisions of the Act are fully complied. Even otherwise, the settled position in law is that an officer entrusted with the duty is not to act mechanically. The Supreme Court as far back as in Secretary, Haila Kandi Bar Association Vs. State of Assam 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 736 reminded the high ranking officers generally, not to mechanically forward the information collected through subordinates. The RTI Act has placed confidence in the objectivity of a person appointed as the PIO and when the PIO mechanically forwards the report of his subordinates, he betrays a casual approach shaking the confidence placed in him and duties the probative value of his position and the report."
The Commission observed that a voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule and members of public who having to seek information should be an exception. It was felt that information relating to circular/ guidelines on various issues relating to conduct of activities by Audit Department, Procedure for appointment of Micro Page 22 of 27 In-Charge, Procedure for transfer and promotion of employees, Purchase/ Allocation of Printing Stationery, Budget for Stationery Allowance, eligibility to receive Cash Handling Allowance, Transfer Grant, Festival Allowance, Allocation of computer equipments/ printers to employees/ officers, Annual bid for the canteen in regional office, House Allotment Policy, Annual Reports, Flat allotments, Establishment date of Regional office, Policy of Cash Allowances, TA/DA rules applicable to the newly recruited employees etc should be suo motu disclosed on the website of the Public Authority so that public need not resort to the RTI mechanism by filing separate RTI applications. An open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo-motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors 2011 (8) SCC 497 held as under:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under Clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption."
The Commission also observes the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruling in WP (C) 12714/2009 Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information Commission and Another (delivered on: 21.05.2010), wherein it was held as under:
"16.It also provides that the information should be easily accessible and to the extent possible should be in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. The word disseminate has also been defined in the explanation to mean - making the information known or communicating the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet, etc. It is, therefore, clear from a plain reading of Section 4 of the RTI Act that the information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under the said section should be made available to the public and specifically through the internet. There is no denying that the petitioner is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information indicated in Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information."
Furthermore, High Court of Delhi in the decision of General Manager Finance Air India Ltd & Anr v. Virender Singh, LPA No. 205/2012, Decided On: 16.07.2012 had held as under:
"8. The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every Page 23 of 27 public authority. An informed citizenry and transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The said legislation is undoubtedly one of the most significant enactments of independent India and a landmark in governance. The spirit of the legislation is further evident from various provisions thereof which require public authorities to:
A. Publish inter alia:
i) the procedure followed in the decision making process;
ii) the norms for the discharge of its functions;
iii) rules, regulations, instructions manuals and records used by its employees in discharging of its functions;
iv) the manner and execution of subsidy programmes including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
v) the particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted. [see Section 4(1) (b), (iii), (iv), (v); (xii) & (xiii)].
B. Suo moto provide to the public at regular intervals as much information as possible [see Section 4(2)]."
The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the matter of Sayyed Education Society v. State of Maharashtra, WP 1305/2011 dated 12.02.2014 had held that public authorities are under a statutory obligation to maintain records and disseminate as per the provisions of the Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005. The High Court in this respect, held as under:
"Needless to state that as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No. 14 in the case of CBSE and Another (supra), Public Authorities are under an obligation to maintain records and disseminate the information in the manner provided under Section 4 of the RTI act. The submission of the petitioner that it is an onerous task to supply documents, therefore is required to be rejected. The Law mandates preserving of documents, supplying copies thereof to the applicant, in our view, cannot be said to be an onerous task."
Above all the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision of R.B.I. and Ors. V. Jayantilal N. Mistry and Ors, Transferred Case (Civil) No. 91 of 2015 (Arising out of Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 707 of 2012 decided on 16.12.2015 had held as under:
"The ideal of 'Government by the people' makes it necessary that people have access to information on matters of public concern. The free flow of information about affairs of Government paves way for debate in public policy and fosters accountability in Government. It creates a condition for 'open governance' which is a foundation of democracy."Page 24 of 27
However, with respect to the issue raised by the Respondent regarding filing of several RTI applications by the Appellant on similar grounds, the Commission would like to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 wherein it was held as under:
"Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing' at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ICAI vs. Shaunak H. Satya (2011) 8 SCC 781 dated 02.09.2011 had held as under:
"26. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Section 4(1)(b) and
(c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources"
With regard to information sought regarding third parties, the Commission referred to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy Gen. Manager v. C.S. Shyam, Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009 dated 31.08.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"5) The information was sought on 15 parameters with regard to various aspects of transfers of clerical staff and staff of the Bank with regard to individual employees. This information was in relation to the personal details of individual employee such as the date of his/her joining, designation, details of promotion earned, date of his/her joining to the Branch where he/she is posted, the authorities who issued the transfer orders etc. etc Page 25 of 27
11) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the application submitted by the 1st respondent under Section 6 of the Act.
12) In our considered opinion, the issue involved herein remains no more res integra and stands settled by two decisions of this Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794, 5 it may not be necessary to re-examine any legal issue urged in this appeal.
14) In our considered opinion, the aforementioned principle of law applies to the facts of this case on all force. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the information sought by respondent No.1 of individual employees working in the Bank was personal in nature; secondly, it was exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(j) of the Act and lastly, neither respondent No.1 disclosed any public interest much less larger public interest involved in seeking such information of the individual employee and nor any finding was recorded by the Central Information Commission and the High Court as to the involvement of any larger public interest in supplying such information to respondent No.1."
During the hearing, after comprehensively examining all the RTI applications dealt with by the Commission, it was abundantly clear that the issues raised by the Appellant pertained to the redressal of his grievances which were acknowledged by the concerned CPIO and the FAA. There was a palpable trust deficit in handling of grievances of the employees although it was informed that the grievance redressal mechanism existed in the public authority. It was agreed by the Respondent to strengthen its Grievance Redressal Policy so that all such issues need not be placed before the Commission for adjudication. With regard to digitizing records in respect of the RTI applications received by the Respondent Public Authority, it was informed by the Respondent that by and large, a computerized mechanism was already in place at the Head Office level, nonetheless they would issue directions to the Regional Offices to strengthen it further. A copy of the replies sent by the CPIO/FAA were readily available with the Respondent Public Authority which due to certain communication gaps, could not be received by the Appellant. It was therefore, assured by the Respondent that a copy of all the replies would be delivered to the Appellant forthwith.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, and in light of the submission of the Appellant regarding non-receipt of replies in majority of the cases, the Commission directed the Respondent to deliver all the replies to him within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission also directed the FAA to revisit its portal regarding placement of notification, rules, regulations and guidelines concerning employees welfare and ensure its updation in a time bound Page 26 of 27 manner. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
The Appeals/Complaints stand disposed with the above direction.
(Bimal Julka) Information Commissioner Authenticated True Copy:
(K.L.Das) Deputy Registrar Copy to:
1- The Chairman, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 87, MG Road, Mumbai - 400001 (with the advice to instruct its officials to develop a robust and effective grievance redressal mechanism so as to obviate the necessity of its employees for filing RTI applications for redressal of their personal grievances.) Page 27 of 27