Central Information Commission
K Arivalagan vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 14 November, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/OICOL/A/2024/113578
K Arivalagan .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
The Oriental Insurance Company
Limited Corporate Office,
Block-4, Plate-A, NBCC Office
Complex, Kidwai Nagar East,
New Delhi - 110023 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12.11.2025
Date of Decision : 14.11.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 01.09.2023
CPIO replied on : 12.10.2023
First appeal filed on : 21.02.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 05.03.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 25.05.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.09.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
"Ref: (1) My Vigilance complaint letter dated 30.6.2023 addressed to CVO, OIC, Head Office, New Delhi against Mr. Bhavani Shankar, Dy.CIC/OICOL/A/2024/113578 Page 1 of 6
General Manager of your Company and Managing Director of Kenindia Assurance Co. Ltd. Kenya on deputation.
(2) IPO No. dated 1.9.2023 for Rs.10/- towards RTI fees.
I am seeking the following information from Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Head Office, New Delhi under RTI Act, 2005 on my letter dated 30.6.2023 sent to The Chief Vigilance Officer, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, Head Office, New Delhi - 110 023.
a. Have you received my above complaint letter dated 30.6.2023 addressed to the CVO, OIC, New Delhi. If so, please provide a certified copy of my complaint letter. If not, where it would have been gone?
b. You have not still provided complaint no. to me. Please provide.
c. Have you registered my complaint against Mr. Bhavani Shankar Sharma? If not what was the reason?
d. If you registered my complaint against Mr. Bhavani Shankar Sharma, what is the present status of my complaint?
e. Have you started investigating the complaint against Mr. Bhavani Shankar Sharma?
f. Have you issued any letter to Mr. Bhavani Shankar Sharma seeking his response /explanation against the complaint? If so share the copy of such letter issued to him?
g. Have you got any instructions from the Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi on my complaint?
h. Have you referred my complaint against Mr. Bhavani Shankar Sharma to Central Vigilance Commission since he is Scale VI Officer? If so (a) share the copy of letter addressed to CVC (b) response/guidance advices received from CVC in this matter.
i. Whether Mr. Bhavani Shankar Sharma is retired from service?
J. If he retired from services, have you settled all his terminal benefits such as Gratuity. EL Encashment, Pension & Pension Commutation?
CIC/OICOL/A/2024/113578 Page 2 of 6k. One Mr. Shanjai Sharma is presently working as Managing Director in Tanzindia Insurance Co. Ltd, Tanzania (A Subsidiary company of Kenindia Assurance Co. Ltd) on deputation from Oriental Insurance Company. He is working in foreign assignment on deputation for more than 11 years. Please respond (1) why you are keeping him in Tanzania for more than 11 years and what was the reasons (2) are you not denying opportunities to other eligible officers of OIC or PSGI companies? (c ) GIPSA companies does not have any qualified person other than Mr. Sanjai Sharma? (d) long stay as in charge in one place may lead to fraud, have you not know? It is within the purview of Vigilance? Please explain l. I brought to the knowledge of your Chairman Cum Managing Director about the frauds happening in Kenindia Assurance Co. Ltd on various emails during March April 2023. Have the Chairman received my emails?
(1) what action was taken by the CMD (2) Has this matter brought to the knowledge of GIPSA (3) Has this matter discussed in GIPSA (4) Has this matter referred to DFS, Ministry of Finance, GOI (5) Has this matter brought to the knowledge of other Indian Directors viz Chairman of LIC, GIC and UIIC?
(6) Provide all the documents supporting the queries 1 (1) to (6)."
2. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 12.10.2023 stating as under:
"a) Yes. Copy of complaint running into three printed pages is attached
b) V-915/041/2023 CVC Case No. on Sr/v. B.S. Sharma
c) Yes
d) The said complaint has been forwarded to CVO, LIC.
e) No
f) No
g) Yes CIC/OICOL/A/2024/113578 Page 3 of 6
h) Yes. CVC advised to refer the complaint to CVO, LIC. Copy of letters sent to CVC and their response is not disclosable under Section 1 (1) (e) of the RTI Act 2005 which reads as under:
8(1) (e): "Information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship..."
i) Yes, Sh B.S. Sharma has retired from service.
j) We have not paid any retirement benefit.
k) No information has been sought and also reasons are not covered as per the provisions of the Section 2(f) of the RTI Act which reads as under:
Section2(f)::"information" means any material in any form, including records, which can be accessed' by a documents, memos, e-mails, public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
1) Point 1 to 6 "Yes the emails were received by the Chairman.
The mails at were originally addressed to Ms. Suchita Gupta [email protected], in her capacity as Chairman, GIPSA. Since these mails are already marked to GIPSA, DFS, LIC, GIC, UIIC, etc. along with OICL-CMD. the matter therefore did not require referral to any of these."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.02.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 05.03.2024, held as under:
"Dr. K. Arivalagan in his online RTI Application OINCL/R/E/24/00018 dated 22.01.2024 requested for providing the information related with Sh. Bhavani Shanker Sharma. The CPIO, HO New Delhi through his decision dated 01.02.2024 replied to the said request.
Dissatisfied with the reply of CPIO, the Appellant has preferred the present First Appeal No. OINCL/A/E/2400017 dated 21.02.2024.
The matter has been reviewed on the basis of RTI application, CPIO's reply and First Appeal. The Appeal was referred to the concerned department(s) who have reiterated their earlier reply and there is nothing to add further in the matter.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of."CIC/OICOL/A/2024/113578 Page 4 of 6
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not Present.
Respondent: Dr. S Rajesh Kumar, Chief Manager & CPIO, Shri Pardeep Kumar Kaushik, Manager (Vigilance Department) and Shri JIitendra Kumar Meena, Deputy Manager (Personnel) present in person.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 25.05.2024 is not available on record. Respondent confirms non-service.
6. Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:
"On going through the contents of the notice, it has been observed that original RTI application dated 01.09.2023 has been received in our office through Post/offline. Accordingly reply for the same was given by CPIO on dt. 12.10.2023.
The complainant has never filed any appeal to the First Appellant Authority (FAA) against CPIO decision for the above said RTI application of 01.09.2023. The date of first Appeal in the hearing notice is 21-02- 2024 for which FAA has passed an order on 05-03-2024. This reference relates to the Complainant's another online appeal bearing no- OINCL/A/E/24/00017 dt.-21.02.2024.
Therefore it is requested that the matter may be closed since the original RTI (01.09.2023) and Appeal (21-02-2024) are of two different information."
7. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that vide their letter dated 12.10.2023, complete point-wise reply/information, as per the documents available on record has been provided to the Appellant. The Respondent apprised the Commission that the Appellant had not filed any first appeal w.r.t the instant RTI application. The first appeal enclosed by the Appellant along with his Second Appeal is related CIC/OICOL/A/2024/113578 Page 5 of 6 to some other RTI application. Therefore, the present Second Appeal is infructuous.
Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, observes that at the relevant point of time, the information as available on record has been provided to the Appellant. If at a later stage, there is any progression in a case, then it does not mean the initial reply given by the CPIO becomes infructuous or incorrect. The applicant needs to file another RTI application for fresh/updated information at subsequent stages.
9. Further, the Commission concededly notes that the first appeal enclosed by the Appellant along with his Second Appeal is not related to the instant RTI application and is pertains to some other RTI application.
10. In absence of filing of any first appeal, the instant Second Appeal is treated as not maintainable and infructuous.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Corporate Office, Block-4, Plate-A, NBCC Office Complex, Kidwai Nagar East, New Delhi - 110023 CIC/OICOL/A/2024/113578 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)