Central Information Commission
Srichandra vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd. on 4 June, 2020
के य सचू ना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ल , New Delhi - 110067
वतीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/NIACL/A/2018/162641-BJ
Mr. Shrichandra
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & Chief Manager
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Regd. & Head Office, New India Assurance Bldg.
87, M.G. Road, Fort
Mumbai - 400001
... तवाद गण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02.06.2020
Date of Decision : 04.06.2020
Date of RTI application 06.03.2018
CPIO's response 26.03.2018
Date of the First Appeal 10.04.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 15.05.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 16.10.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 07 points regarding the present status of his Complaint dated 09.10.2016 addressed to CVO, New India Mumbai for various irregularities and corruption reports of Mr. B. D. Parihar, Branch Manager, Firozabad; decision of the company in this regard; whether the enquiry had been completed or in action; copy of complete case file for his study and other issues thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 26.03.2018 stated that the information sought by the Appellant received from the concerned Vigilance Department Office wherein the Chief Manager, vide its letter dated 20.03.2018 provided point - wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 15.05.2018 upheld the response of the CPIO.Page 1 of 4
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Shrichandra through TC;
Respondent: Mr. R. N. Chakrabarty, CPIO (HQ), Mumbai through TC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the information sought was not disclosed to him. Explaining that the details sought pertained to a matter of corruption, the Appellant stated that being the complainant himself, he was entitled to know the action taken in the matter as also the copy of the inquiry report. In its reply, the Respondent stated that out of the 07 points raised in the RTI application they had provided the information on points 01 to 03. However, no material information was sought in points 04, 05 and 07 hence a suitable response was provided. As regards point no 06, the information was denied since its disclosure could cause unwarranted invasion to the privacy of the concerned employee. On being queried if the copy of the inquiry report prepared on the basis of the complaint filed by the Appellant was provided to him, the Respondent replied in the negative but submitted that the Appellant was informed that his complaint had been dealt with.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 26.05.2020 wherein while re-iterating the response of the CPIO/ FAA, it was inter alia stated that the case file of the Appellant contained name and other details of Officials of this Company whose privacy deserved to be protected. In the light of Supreme Court interpretation of applicability of section 8(1)(g) in BPSC vs. Saiyed Hussain, the dignity and reputation of these officials cannot be put at stake nor will his disclosure of information lead to transparency and accountability. Thus, it was stated that the information was exempted from disclosure as per Section 8 (1) (g) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
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. The PFC Officers Association had pointed out certain conduct which according to them was irregular and warranted disciplinary action; thus, they would be certainly entitled to know as to how their complaints have been treated and the results thereof.
7. Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act reads as under:- "8. Exemption from disclosure of information.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,-
xxxxxxxxx (j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has not relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Central Information Commission appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information."
8. It is apparent from the plain reading of the aforesaid clause that in order to claim exemption from disclosure of any information, the essential conditions that must be satisfied are: (i) that it is personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest; or (b) that it would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.
Page 2 of 4However, even if the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority may disclose the information if they are satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
9. The proviso of Section 8 (1) of the Act is also important and reads as under: "Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person."
10. By virtue of the aforesaid proviso to Section 8(1) of the Act, it is enacted that information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. In the present case, it was doubtful whether information as to the fate of the complaints can be considered as personal information that has no relationship with public interest or public activity. The activity of the Central Vigilance Department includes investigation and taking action in cases of corruption. Secondly, the complaint related to the allegations of misconduct and how these complaints were treated were clearly matter of public interest.
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."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission instructs the Respondent to re-examine the RTI application and provide the inquiry report on the complaint made by the Appellant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order depending upon the condition for containment of the Corona Virus Pandemic in the Country or through email.
The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(The order will be posted on the website of the Commission) (Bimal Julka) ( बमल जु का) (Chief Information Commissioner) (मु य सच ू ना आयु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) (K.L. Das) (के.एल.दास) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535/ [email protected] दनांक / Date: 04.06.2020 Page 3 of 4 Copy to:
1. Chairman, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 87, MG Road, Mumbai - 400001 Page 4 of 4