Central Information Commission
Vinay Sharma vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 24 August, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/LICOI/A/2017/139095-BJ
Mr. Vinay Sharma,
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & Manager (CRM),
LIC of India,
Divisional Office, "Jeevan Prakash",
City Centre, Gwalior 474011
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24.08.2018
Date of Decision : 24.08.2018
Date of RTI application 15.01.2017
CPIO's response 08.02.2017
Date of the First Appeal 05.03.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 28.03.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 07.06.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 12 points regarding FIR No. 0242 dated 16.07.2016, date of report/ detection in LIC of the alleged irregularities as mentioned in the FIR, name and designation of the competent authority to sanction lodging of FIR in Sheopur Branch in Gwalior Division and issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 08.02.2017 provided a point wise response to the Appellant denying information on point no. 07 u/s 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Similarly, information on points 09 to 12 was denied u/s 8 (1) (e), (h) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 28.03.2017 concurred with the CPIOs response with reference to the aforementioned points.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:Page 1 of 4
Appellant: Mr. Vinay Sharma in person;
Respondent: Mr. Pankaj Vohra, CPIO / Manager (CRM) through VC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that barring information on points 01 and 05 of the RTI application, the remaining points were not satisfactorily addressed, till date. It was submitted that since he was an aggrieved party in the matter and that his name had been referred as an accused in the FIR, hence he was entitled to the information in light of the principles of natural justice (nemo iudex in causa sua) and right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem). In its reply, the Respondent stated that a point wise reply was provided by the CPIO/ FAA. Explaining that the Departmental inquiry in the matter was under process, the Respondent submitted that the information sought on the remaining points could not be provided at this stage. It was further stated that the Branch Manager was competent to file an FIR in the matter. The Appellant contested the averments made by the Respondent and alleged that there were irregularities and arbitrariness in the criminal action instituted against him. On being specifically queried regarding the stage of the departmental inquiry, the Respondent intimated that it was still in progress.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 20.08.2018, wherein while re-iterating the reply of the CPIO/ FAA it was stated that the information sought related to confidential details of third parties. Furthermore, the departmental inquiry was in progress and that the investigations made by the police authorities was also not completed. Moreover, no larger public interest warranting disclosure of information was justified by the Appellant.
The Commission referred to the decision in the matter of K.S. Prasad vs SEBI CIC/AT/A/2007/007/00234 wherein it was held as under:
"...as soon as an investigation or an enquiry by a subordinate Enquiry Officer in Civil and Administrative matters comes to an end and, the investigation report is submitted to a higher authority, it cannot be said to be the end of investigation. ... which can be truly said to be concluded only with the decision by the competent authority."
In this context a reference can be made to the decision of the bench of the Commission in Shri Arun Kumar Agrawal v. SEBI CIC/SM/A/2012/000196 dated 28.11.2014 wherein it was held as under:
"15. In the present case, final orders are yet to be passed by the competent authority under the SEBI Act. Therefore, the process of investigation against the RIL is still pending before SEBI and it cannot be said the same has reached its conclusion. Hence, the requested information falls under exemption under section 8(1) (h) of the Act.
16. The Commission recognizes the perspective brought out on public interest in the course of the hearing. The appellant had underlined emphatically the dimensions of public interest overriding the protected interest, i.e. the protection given to the 'fiduciary' elements. However, the other side argued that the appellant is overstating the public Page 2 of 4 interest without taking into account that the investigation is still going on. We have, therefore, to await the completion of this investigation. It will not be wise for the Commission to speculate as to what conclusions the SEBI will draw."
The Commission observed that the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Commission in a plethora of decisions including Shri Vikram Singh v. Delhi Police, North East District, CIC/SS/A/2011/001615 dated 17.02.2012 Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India, Lucknow CIC/DS/A/2012/000906 dated 06.09.2012, Mr. H. K. Bansal vs. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013 had held that RTI Act was not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012 IN Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 had held as under:
"While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate forum. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
Moreover, in a recent decision in Govt. of NCT vs. Rajendra Prasad WP (C) 10676/2016 dated 30.11.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held as under:
6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes. 7 . In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of examination by the CIC was: (i) whether the information sought for by the respondent Page 3 of 4 was provided to him; (ii) if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; (iii) whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and (iv) whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. In addition, the CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as expressly provided under various provisions of the Act including Section 25 of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme.
A similar view delineating the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction was also taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sher Singh Rawat vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors., W.P. (C) 5220/2017 and CM No. 22184/2017 dated 29.08.2017 and in the matter of Shobha Vijender vs. Chief Information Commissioner W.P. (C) No. 8289/2016 and CM 34297/2016 dated 29.11.2016.
The Appellant contested that he was wrongly accused in the case and he questioned the institution of Departmental Inquiry and the FIR being lodged at the same time. Drawing attention of the Commission to the alleged large scale fraud committed by the Appellant, the Respondent stated that at this stage of inquiry, no further inputs could be offered and that as and when the chargesheet would be ready, the same would be served on him.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted at this stage. However, the Respondent is advised to disclose the details sought by the Appellant in his RTI application as soon as the investigation in the matter stands completed. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 24.08.2018
Page 4 of 4