Central Information Commission
Shri Ravi Kumar Potdar vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New ... on 26 February, 2010
1
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.296, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Telefax:011-26180532 & 011-26107254 website:cic.gov.in
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2009/000203-DS
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2009/000204-DS
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2009/000205-DS
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2009/000206-DS
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2009/000207-DS
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2009/000208-DS
Complaint No. CIC/AT/C/2009/000215-DS
Appellant : Shri Ravi Kumar Potdar, Indore
(through video conferencing at NIC, Indore)
Public Authority : The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi(through Shri P.K. Jha,
DGM, H.O./CPIO, Shri V.V. Mohlla, Manager, H.O.; Shri A. Das,
Chief Manager/AA; & Shri V.K. Sharma, Manager, R.O., Indore)
Date of Hearing : 26/02/2010
Date of Decision : 26/02/2010
Facts:-
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2009/000203-DS The appellant Shri Ravi Kumar Potdar, vide his RTI application of 06/07/2008, sought information from the CPIO of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., as per annexure-I
2. Briefly, the appellant has sought information regarding those officials of the company who were granted VRS even though they were facing major/minor penalty proceedings by the Board of directions of the Company and in some cases charge-sheets had also been issued.
3. The CPIO, vide his order of 12/08/2008, denied information on account of it being very voluminous under sub section 9 of section 7 of the Act.
4. The appellant went in first appeal to the first Appellate Authority vide letter of 15/09/2008 to which the first Appellate Authority vide his order of 14/10/2008 also denied disclosure on account of information sought being extremely voluminous.
5. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant has come before the Commission in second appeal.
6. Heard today. The appellant was present through video conferencing at NIC, Indore. The respondents were present as above. Both sides placed their arguments before the Commission.
27. In respect of points a,b,c&d of the RTI application, the respondents stated that there were 64 cases in all that were covered by the RTI application.
8. They also stated that the appellant had misused his rights given under the Act and had made close to 100 RTI applications which was done to harass the respondents.
9. The respondent averred that VRS had been granted to these 64 officials after obtaining approval of the Board of Directors who had passed appropriate resolution in this regard.
DECISION
10. Since this is a matter of public interest and impacts the efficiency and personnel management of the Company, as also expending of public funds, the Commission directs that copies of the minutes of the meetings vide which these resolutions were passed along with the agenda for the meetings of the Board, may be provided to the appellant within 04 weeks of receipt of this order.
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2009/000204-DS
11. The appellant Shri Ravi Kumar Potdar, vide his RTI application of 11/08/2008, has sought information from the CPIO of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., regarding tours undertaken to Delhi by Shri V.K. Sharma, Manager, Indore-Regional Office, from the date of his joining, i.e., January, 2007, till 11 August, 2008, the date of his RTI application.
12. He has also sought details of tour dates, sanction by competent authority and tour bills including copies of payment vouchers pertaining to TA/DA for these tours.
13. The CPIO, vide his order of 20/08/2008, asked the appellant to approach the CPIO, Indore, since they were holders of this information.
14. The appellant went in first appeal to the First Appellate Authority against this order on 12/09/2008, who vide his order of 10/10/2008, asked the appellant to inspect the relevant records and the copies and documents selected by him would be furnished on payment of prescribed fee. He also asked the appellant to make payment of Rs.1000/- as costs to Company for collecting this information.
15. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has approached this Commission for redressal.
16. Heard today. The appellant was present through video conferencing at NIC, Indore. The respondents were present as above.
DECISION
17. After hearing the submissions of both parties, it is directed that:-
3(1) tour details as sought by the appellant in his RTI application may be provided to him since this information pertains to a public servant and the expenditure on TA/DA is borne by the public authority.
(2) The Commission also directs that other than the prescribed fee, no additional payment can be demanded by the public authority from the appellant in keeping with the principles laid down by this Commission in their order of 2 Cases - Decision No. CIC/WB/C/2007/00943 & CIC/MA/A/2008/01085 dated 30/10/2009 on Appeals/Complaints from Shri Subodh Jain & Shri K.K. Kishore Vs Deputy Commissioner of Police, West District, New Delhi & Institute of Company Secretaries of India.
(3) The Commission also directs the appellant to exercise the privileges and rights endowed upon him by the RTI Act with responsibility and not to use it as a tool of settling personal scores or harassing those serving in public authorities who are charged with responsibility of implementing the Act in letter and in spirit.
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2009/000205-DS
18. The appellant Shri Ravi Kumar Potdar, vide his RTI application of 09/08/2008, has sought information from the CPIO of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi, regarding DA claim by Shri V.K. Sharma, Manager, Regional Office, Indore for 22 years starting 23rd July, 1986. His contention is that Shri V.K. Sharma, who was drawing pension in respect of military service rendered by him prior to joining Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., was drawing DA on two counts, i.e., through his military pension and also from his current employer whereas he was entitled to draw DA only from one authority.
19. The CPIO, vide his order of 26/08/2008, provided the appellant with information for five years, i.e., from 2002 to 2006. The order also stated that if the appellant wanted information for an earlier period, he would have to pay an additional amount for collecting this information.
20. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant went in first appeal vide application of 13/09/2008, which was disposed of vide first Appellate Authority's order of 10/10/2008 wherein he upheld the order of the CPIO.
21. The appellant has moved the Commission in second appeal.
22. The matter was heard today. The appellant was present through video conferencing at NIC, Indore. The respondents were present as above. The appellant stated that Shri V.K. Sharma had served for 10 years each at the Lucknow and Delhi offices of the Company and was 4 serving at Indore from 2007 to date, therefore, it would not be difficult for the public authority to provide him with the information.
23. The respondents, however, made a plea that they had already provided information pertaining to 5 years and that old information was not easy to retrieve. Also, part of the information would have been destroyed since it was 22 years old.
DECISION
24. After hearing the submissions of both parties, it is directed that:-
(1) The respondents may provide the appellant with a copy of the rules pertaining to the preservation and destruction of records of the category sought by the appellant.
(2) The information pertaining to the years for which the records are mandated to be preserved, may be provided.
(3) Also, information on this subject, which is available through the Annual Income Tax Project-sheet, if available for 22 years, may be provided to the appellant.
(4) As mentioned in the above order in Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2009/000204-DS, it is reiterated that no additional cost may be imposed by the public authority on the appellant other than the prescribed fee in keeping with the principles laid down by this Commission in their order of 2 Cases - Decision No. CIC/WB/C/2007/00943 & CIC/MA/A/2008/01085 dated 30/10/2009 on Appeals/Complaints from Shri Subodh Jain & Shri K.K. Kishore Vs Deputy Commissioner of Police, West District, New Delhi & Institute of Company Secretaries of India.
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2009/000206-DS & (Complaint No. CIC/AT/C/2009/000215-DS
25. The appellant Shri Ravi Kumar Potdar, vide his RTI application of 12/08/2008, has sought information from the CPIO of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., in respect of vigilance cases in which only minor penalties were imposed on Branch Manager, Rewa, in the year 1999, in which major penalty was recommended.
26. The appellant has sought copies of all letters, charge-sheets, investigation reports, notings of Vigilance Departments etc. pertaining to this case.
527. The CPIO, vide his order of 06/10/2008, have denied information under sub section 9 of section 8, stating that the investigation was still in progress.
28. The appellant went in first appeal on 18/10/2008, seeking anew this information since the investigation in the case have been completed.
29. He also complained that the CPIO's order had not been signed by the CPIO which was in contravention of the provisions of the RTI Act.
30. The first appellate authority, vide order of 10/11/2008, denied disclosure under sub section
(h) of section 8(1) of the Act and also clarified that the CPIO had wrongly typed section 8(9) of the Act in his order.
31. The appellant has come before this Commission in second appeal.
32. The matter was heard today. The appellant was present through video conferencing at NIC, Indore. The respondents were present as above. Both sides made their submissions before the Commission. The appellant stated that the inquiry was over and the information sought could now be provided.
DECISION
33. The respondents informed that the inquiry had led to recommending of major penalty to the official which had been imposed in March, 2009.
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2009/000207-DS
34. The appellant Shri Ravi Kumar Potdar, vide his RTI application of 16/08/2008, has sought information from the CPIO of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., as per annexure I, which is enclosed, pertaining to a case of 2003, for which the appellant wishes to see the clam file of the case, charge- sheet-copies against officials, their replies etc. including details of penalties recommended against the said officials and the official order imposing penalty.
35. The CPIO, vide his order of 15/10/2008, sought time of 20 days beyond the mandated period to provide the information.
36. The appellant moved in first appeal, vide application of 08/10/2008.
37. The first Appellate Authority, vide their order of 07/11/2008, informed, that the desired information had been provided by the CPIO vide his letter of 29/10/2008.
38. The matter was heard today. The appellant was present through video conferencing at NIC, Indore. The respondents were present as above. The respondents informed the Commission that they have provided 78 pages of information to the appellant and had offered to 6 move the relevant files from their Delhi Office to Indore so that the appellant could inspect the same.
39. The appellant, however, refused the offer.
40. The respondents stated that they would provide information as per para 6 of his second appeal in respect of part (a) and part (b) of the said para.
41. This was agreed to by the appellant.
DECISION
42. The information, as above, may be provided to the appellant within 04 weeks of receipt of this order with the proviso that the Commission will not allow another appeal on this subject from the appellant.
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2009/000 208-DS
43. The appellant Shri Ravi Kumar Potdar, vide his RTI application of 06/09/2008, have sought information from the CPIO of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., regarding the names of departments and persons responsible for not adhering to section 4(1) of the RTI Act.
44. The CPIO, vide his order of 01/10/2008, responded that the information sought by the appellant vide his RTI application, was not 'information' as defined under section 2(f) of the Act.
45. The appellant went in appeal against this decision, to the first Appellate Authority, who, upheld the order of the CPIO, vide his order of 07/11/2008. The matter was heard today. The appellant was present through video conferencing at NIC, Indore. The respondents were present as above.
DECISION
46. It is clarified to the appellant that appeal is not allowed in terms of sub section (1) of section 4 of the Act against any public authority since this is a suo moto provision.
47. However, he can draw the attention of the public authority to certain information gaps which they can take action to bridge.
48. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Smt. Deepak Sandhu) Information Commissioner (DS) Authenticated true copy:
(Tarun Kumar) Joint Secretary & Addl. Registrar 7 Copy to:-
1. Shri Ravi Kumar Potdar, 72/74, Suyash Vihar, Bhamori Dube, Nandanagar, Indore-452011.
2. Shri P.K. Jha, DGM, H.O./CPIO The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Oriental House, P. B. No-7037, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002.
3. The First Appellate Authority Under RTI Act, 2005, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Oriental House, P. B. No-7037, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002.