Central Information Commission
Raj Kumar Dak vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 14 June, 2022
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली New Delhi - 110067
नई द ली,
ि तीयअपीलसं या/Second
Second Appeal No. CIC/LICOI/A/2020/131134
Mr. Raj Kumar Dak ... अपीलकता /Appellant
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ितवादी/Respondent
... ितवादी
Life Insurance Corporation of India
CRM Department, Northern Zonal
Office, 13th Floor, Jeevan Bharti
Building, 124, Connaught Circus,
New Delhi-110001
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
appeal:-
RTI : 24-02-2020 FA : 04-06-2020 SA : 13-10-2020
13
CPIO : 21-03-2020 FAO : 04-08-2020 Hearing: 08
8-06-2022
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Life Insurance Corporation of India, New Delhi. The appellant seeking information is as under:-
Page 1 of 42. The CPIO vide letter dated 21-03-2020 had denied the information as sought by the appellant under section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act, 2005. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has filed first appeal dated 04-06-2020 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAA vide order dated 04-08-2020 upheld CPIOs reply and disposed the appeal. He has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to him and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant did not attend the hearing despite notice. The respondent, Ms. Veena S Lakra, CPIO/ Regional Manager (CRM) attended the hearing in person.
4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 31.05.2022 and the same has been taken on record.
5. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 21.03.2020, they have informed the appellant that copy of appeal as sought by the appellant has already been provided to the appellant. She has further submitted that the relevant note sheets had been denied under section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act. She has also referred judgment of the Commission bearing file no. CIC/AT/A/2010/000757 dated 12.11.2010 wherein the Commission relied upon the case of Sh. K.L. Bablani v. DG Vigilance Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi (CIC/AT/A/2019/000617 dated 16.09.2009) wherein the Commission has held as follows:-
"6...In most cases, the purpose is to find out the identity of those officers who had taken favourable and those who had taken unfavourable view of the conduct of such employees in recording the file-notes. The employees are aware that it is these notes, which eventually lead to decisions for, or against, them by the competent authority and want, for their own different purposes, to gain access to the identities of those recording the notes as well as the notes recorded to pursue their agendas about, or against, the officers recording those notes. It has happened in a few cases that even bona-fide comments made in such sensitive files by officers, when disclosed to the person in respect of whom such comments were made, brought retribution to the officer recording the note in the shape of a Page 2 of 4 court proceeding, a notice for damages and so on. In some cases, even intimidation was resorted to...Confidentiality of note-files, therefore, is an entirely wholesome principle conducive to good governance. Any compromise with objectivity in processing matters extant in the file, is potentially damaging to governance by exposing those entrusted with the charge of processing the matter to, undue, and sometimes, intimidating, scrutiny by interested parties."
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought copies of all the documents of the file (as mentioned in the RTI Application) & other queries related thereto. The respondent has contended that the appeal dated 17.05.2019 as mentioned by the applicant was considered by the Appellant Authority (Zonal Manager) and the contentions raised by the applicant were addressed and Appellate Order dated 22.11.2019 was issued which was received by the applicant on 11.12.2019. Further they have denied to provide the copy of relevant note sheets to the appellant w.r.t his departmental proceedings as disclosure of such information would endangers the life of the persons involved and will disclose the sources of information , hence denied u/s 8 (1) (g) of RTI Act, 2005. The respondent in support of their argument has also relied on one judgment passed by the Commission titled as Sh. K.L. Bablani v. DG Vigilance Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi (CIC/AT/A/2019/000617 dated 16.09.2009) wherein the Commission has held as under:-
".......the file notings in vigilance files cannot be authorized to be disclosed at these amounted to information confidentially held by the Public Authority and thereby come within the scope of Section 11 (1) read with Section 2 (n) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence the information sought is denied on the ground that the same is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act, 2005."
The Commission has gone through the contents of the above said case carefully and observes that the said case is not applicable in the present matter as the referred case is related to the vigilance proceedings whereas the present case is related to the departmental proceedings.
Page 3 of 47. In light of the above observations, the Commission deems it fit to direct the respondent to provide a revised reply vide which copy of relevant note sheets related to his departmental proceedings as exists on records should be provided to the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. In case public authority feels it necessary, in the interest of life and safety of such officers, the details of officials contributing to noting/ inputs, in the processing of the case, may also be redacted.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरजकु मारगु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु ा
सूचनाआयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 08-06-2022
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
Life Insurance Corporation of India
CRM Department, Northern Zonal Office,
13th Floor, Jeevan Bharti Building, 124,
Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001
2. Mr. Raj Kumar Dak
Page 4 of 4