Central Information Commission
Pallavi Nandan vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 30 June, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/LICOI/A/2023/618311
Pallavi Nandan .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. R Hemalatha
MANAGER (CRM)/PIO, LIC,
NORTHERN ZONAL OFFICE, 13TH
FLOOR, JIWAN BHARTI BUILDING,
CONNAUGHT CIRCUS, NEW DELHI - 110001
2. Rajesh Tikko
the then MANAGER (CRM)/PIO,
LIC, NORTHERN ZONAL OFFICE,
13TH FLOOR, JIWAN BHARTI
BUILDING, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS,
NEW DELHI - 110001 .... तवाद गण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 07.06.2024
Date of Decision : 11.07.2024
Date of SCN hearing : 28.05.2025
Date of SCN Decision : 27.06.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06.02.2023
CPIO replied on : 10.02.2023, 15.02.2023 and 28.02.2023
First appeal filed on : 10.03.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 24.03.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 10.04.2023
Page 1 of 15
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.02.2023 seeking the following information:
1. "Details of leave taken by officers of North Zone Delhi from 01/04/2022 to 31/12/2022.
2 Copy of Assessment of loss due to leave of officers in aforesaid period.
3. Loss due to leave of Janmanjay Kumar as ABMS in BO 116 now posted in BO 327 on 13th June 2022 & 24th June 2022.
4. Details of explanation call given for loss due to sanctioned leave during leave from 1st APRIL 2022 to 31/12/2022.
5. Process of taking leave in emergency for treatment of mother to be wife of 7 month."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 10.02.2023 stating as under:
"This has reference to your RTI Application received through the RTI online Module on 06.02.2023.
You have made reference of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, wherein information is to be provided within 48 hours, when information sought pertains to life and liberty of people.
You are however informed that the information sought in this application does not pertain to life and liberty, and hence does not qualify for information to be provided within 48 hours as envisaged under proviso to Sec 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Further the CPIO, vide letter dated- 15.02.2023 provided point wise reply sating on under-:
"1. Query is not specific. However, keeping in view the spirit of RTI Act, 2005 it is informed that the data of all the officers of North Zone, Delhi is not maintained by Zonal Office and to collect and collate would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority, hence exempted under sector 7(9) of RTI Act, 2005. Also, it relates to third party information and no larger public interest is established for disclosure of the same, hence exempted under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.Page 2 of 15
2. No such data is maintained.
3,4 & 5. will be replied by CPIO, Divisional Office -II, Delhi of the Public Authority."
Further, the CPIO, Divisional Office -II, Delhi vide letter dated 28.02.2023 provided point wise reply stating as under:
"This has reference to your RTI application transferred from our Zonal Office New Delhi on 06.02.2023 Divisional Office -II, Delhi of the vide Reg. No. LIC/NZ/R/E/23/00045/1, seeking information in respect of leave and loss due to leave of officers of North Zone, and leave and explanation call of Janmanjay Kumar ABM(s), we provide herewith, the required information as received from the deemed CPIO of the concerned Branch Office and concerned departments of Delhi Divisional Office 02:
Query No. 01 & 02: Already, replied to by the Zonal Office vide letter Ref. No. LICNZ/R/E/23/00045/117 dated 15.02.2023.
Query No.03: The query relates to third party information hence exempted under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005. Further, it is to inform that loss in Business due to absence of Sh. Janmanjay Kumar is non measurable.
Query No. 04: The query relates to third party information hence exempted under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005.
Query No. 05: Query is not clear."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.03.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 24.03.2023 held as under:-
1. "The reply given by CPIO is upheld. It is once again reiterated that the data of leave taken by the officers of North Zone Delhi is not maintained by the Public Authority, as such information sought by the appellant cannot be given.
2. The reply given by CPIO is upheld.
3. The query relates to third party information hence exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005. Further it is to inform that loss in business due to absence of Sh. Janmanjay Kumar is significant but not measurable.Page 3 of 15
4. The reply given by the CPIO is upheld.
5. The reply given by the CPIO is upheld."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing on 07.06.2024:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present along with his counsel Prasoon Kumar Mishra in person.
Respondent: Ms. R. Hemalatha, CPIO, Ms. Monica Sethi, AS, CRM/PD, Ms. Archana Aggarwal, AO and Ms. Sudha Mishra, AO, Delhi DO-II, appeared in person.
The appellant inter alia submitted that information sought was not provided by the respondent. She further submitted that her husband Shri Janmanjay Kumar had taken two days leave on two occasions in the Month of June 2022 (13th and 24th June) due to her illness. She stated that there were some complications in her pregnancy, therefore, her husband took telephonic permission from his superior and went to the Hospital for the treatment. Subsequently, her husband was show caused due to his absence in the office as the respondent office has suffered loss. However, the respondent had not informed the quantum of loss. Therefore, the appellant sought aforesaid information to which the respondent has denied and claimed exemption arbitrarily.
The respondents while defending their case reiterated the replies given by them as per the provisions of the RTI Act vide their letters dated 15.02.2023, 28.02.2023 and 24.03.2023. They further submitted that on 13.06.2022 when the Marketing Manager was to visit in BO-116 to augment the business of that branch office, Shri Janmanjay Kumar (who was posted there as Asstt. Branch Manager (Sales), availed leave. Again, on 24 June 2022 when whole of the Division was observing new business day to boost the sale of ULIP policies, Sh.
Janmanjay Kumar again remained absent from duty even though he was directly responsible for procurement of business.
Further, it is brought to the notice of the Commission that on 28.06.2022, when Sh. Janmanjay Kumar was at Divisional Office for official work, both the Page 4 of 15 Marketing Managers tried to counsel him. It was further submitted that on the same day, wife of Sh. Janmanjay Kumar approached police authorities by dialling police assistance number, after which police official visited Branch Office-116 where Sh. Janmanjay Kumar was posted. It was viewed as a serious matter, and disciplinary action was initiated against Sh. Janmanjay Kumar for police interference sought by his wife and tarnishing the image of the Corporation.
Order on 11.07.2024 "The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that reply given by the respondents are incomplete, evasive and misleading. The appellant during the hearing submitted that the respondent had not provided information even related to her husband Sh. Janmanjay Kumar. It my not be out of place to mention that the respondent has not followed the procedure laid down under section 11 of the RTI Act before denying the information under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. The appellant along with her husband appeared before the Commission to defend the case. Therefore, the exemption claimed by the respondent under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The appellant stated that show cause notice was issued to her husband (Sh. Janmanjay Kumar) on the ground that the respondent office has suffered loss due to absence of Sh. Janmanjay Kumar. Therefore, quantum of loss should have been provided to the appellant. Besides, procedure for taking leave in emergency medical condition was also not provided by the respondent.
In view of the above, Shri Rajesh Tikko, the then CPIO/Manager CRM and Ms. R. Hemalatha, present CPIO are show caused to explain as to why maximum penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed against each of them for not providing the information sought on point Nos. 2 to 5 of the RTI application. The present PIO is given responsibility to serve a copy of this order as well as the show-cause notice to the then PIO and secure his written explanations as well as his attendance on the next date of hearing. All the written explanations (from both the PIOs) must reach the Commission within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Page 5 of 15Further, the respondent is directed to provide the revised information on point Nos. 3 to 5 of the RTI application, free of cost, within three weeks' time from the date of receipt of this order. As regards point Nos. 1 and 2, the Commission finds that appropriate reply has been given on these points by the respondents."
Relevant Facts emerged during Show-Cause proceedings held on 28.05.2025:
I. The following were present:-
Appellant: Ms. Pallavi Nandan, Shri Jan Manjay Kumar, Husband of the Appellant, Ms. Arina Bhattacharjee and Shri Prasoon Kumar Mishra, Advocates, attended the hearing in person.
Respondent: Smt. R. Hemalatha, then CPIO-cum-Secretary, Smt. Veena Stella Lakra, Regional Manager, Smt. Aparna Anand, Regional Manager, Shri Rajiv Sethi, Manager, Shri Rajesh Tikko, Manager (retd.), the then CPIO/Manager, Shri Jagdish Singh, Manager CRM-cum-CPIO, Smt. Monica Sethi, Assistant Secretary (CRM), Shri Sushil Kumar Meena, Assistant Secretary, Smt. Archana Aggarwal, AO, Ms. Sudha Mishra, AO and Shri Manish, AO, attended the hearing in person.
II. The Appellant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information as sought in point No. 1 and 2 of the RTI Application.
III. The Commission interjected and apprised the Appellant of the fact that as per the previous directions of this Bench passed vide order dated 11.07.2024, the Respondent was directed to provide the revised information on point No. 3 to 5 of the RTI Application and since this is a SCN proceeding, no fresh direction can be given to the Respondent at this stage as it will amounts to review of the previous order passed on 11.07.2024.
IV. The Respondent submitted that in compliance with the previous directions of this Bench passed vide order dated 11.07.2024, the relevant information with respect to point No. 3 to 5 of the RTI Application has been provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 01.08.2024, stating as under:
"Query No.(3):Loss due to leave of Janmanjay Kumar as ABMS in BO 116 on 13th June 2022 and 24th June 2022 Page 6 of 15 Reply: No such record is being maintained. Further it is informed that as per Statement of Imputation of Lapses dated 09.12.2022 issued to Shri Janmanjay Kumar, then Assistant Branch Manager-Sales(Branch 115) mentioned at Point No.3 that "his deliberate absence without prior information on 13.06.2022 when the Marketing Manager was to visit Branch office and again on 24.06.2022 when the day was being celebrated as ULIP Day in all the Branches of Delhi Division-2, adversely affected the sale of our new business performance".
Query No.(4):Details of explanation call given for loss due to sanctioned leave during leave from 1st April 2022 to 31 December 2022 Reply: No explanation has been called from any employee for only reason of loss due to sanctioned leave for the mentioned period in Delhi Divisional office-2 Query No.(5): Process of taking leave in emergency for treatment of mother to be wife of 7 month Reply: The query is not clear. However in the spirit of RTI, it is informed that rules related to various type of leaves available to an employee of Life Insurance Corporation of India are available on our website www.licindia.in which is in public domain. The applicant can view these rules by following the path given below www.licindia.in -RTI Centre -Disclosure II- Powers and Duties of its officers and employees - Staff Rules 1960(Chapter V) - Holidays and Leaves (copy of the same is also enclosed)."
V. A written explanation to the SCN has been received from Shri C.S. Daspa, Senior Divisional Manager, vide letter dated 21.05.2025, stating as under:
"This is with reference to notice of Hon'ble CIC under File No. CIC/LICOI/A/2023/618311 fvg. Ms. Pallavi Nandan, whereby I have been instructed to appear the CIC on 28.05.2025.
As per the award of the Hon'ble CIC dated 11.07.2024, CPIO was show caused for not providing the information sought on point Nos.3 to 5 of the RTI application and also respondent was directed to provide the revised information on point No.3 to 5 of the RTI application free of cost within three weeks time from the date of receipt of the order. The award of the Hon'ble CIC was duly complied with and revised information vide our letter dated 01.08.2024 was provided to the applicant within the prescribed time. Our explanation dated 02.08.2024 in the matter along with FO and SOIL was also uploaded on the CIC website on same day.Page 7 of 15
In this regards, my humble submission is as under:
RTI application of Ms. Pallavi Nandan was partially transferred from Northern Zonal Office on 06.02.2023 in r/o point nos. 3 to 5 as under:
Query No.(3):Loss due to leave of Janmanjay Kumar as ABMS in BO 116 on 13th June 2022 and 24 June 2022 Query No.(4):Details of explanation call given for loss due to sanctioned leave during leave from 1" April 2022 to 31 December 2022 Query No.(5): Process of taking leave in emergency for treatment of mother to be wife of 7 month The applicant (Ms. Pallavi Nandan) in her RTI application did not mention any relationship with Mr.Janmanjay Kumar Hence the desired information under query no. 3 & 4 was not provided as per provisions of section 8(1)(j) being 3"
party information. However it was informed to the applicant that loss in business due to absence of Shri Janmanjay Kumar is not measureable. Query No. 5 was not clear and hence replied as such.
The queries were replied on the basis of information provided by the deemed CPIOs of concerned Divisional Office departments. The Imputation of Lapses dated 09.12.2022 issued to Shri Janmanjay Kumar, then Assistant Branch Manager-Sales(Branch 116) mentioned at Point No.3 that his absence without prior information on 13.06.2022 when the Marketing Manager was to visit Branch office and again on 24.06.2022 when the day was being celebrated as ULIP Day in all the Branches of Delhi Division-2, adversely affected the sale of our new business performance. The employee has availed one day CL on 13.06.2022 and One day short duration Privilege leave on 24.06.2022. As per Staff Regulations in force, Leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Casual leave may normally be availed of only after sanction by the competent authority but one day's casual leave may be availed of without prior sanction in case of unforeseen emergency provided the competent authority is promptly notified of the circumstances in which prior sanction could not be obtained Being Assistant Branch Manager (Sales) of the Branch, he was directly responsible to coordinate with field force including Development Officers, Agents and Life Insurance Advisors, guide them to make the Special Sales Day successful. His efforts on the mentioned special Sales Promotional Days would have augmented the sale of new policies. The quantum of this probable/notional loss to the organization is not measurable in terms of number Page 8 of 15 of policies or premium income. On previous occasions also he used to take leave without prior approval on important business days viz 08.03.2021 to 10.03.2021, 30.03.2021 to 31.03.2021 and 05.04.2021. However the Competent Authority sanctioned his leave on 08.03.2021 to 10.03.2021, 30.03.2021 to 31.03.2021 and 05.04.2021 as short duration Privilege Leave and did not treat them as unauthorised absence.
It is also pertinent to mention that the employee Shri Janmanjay Kumar, has not exhausted the internal mechanism for redressal of his grievance against the competent Authority order dated 06.07.2023. The employee has made an appeal dated 30.09.2023 to Zonal Manager against the order of penalty dated 06.07.2023 which was subsequently rejected by Zonal Manager. Further No memorial was made to MD cum CEO in the matter.
Further as an additional information, we would like to add that Applicant has filed writ petition in the High Court of Delhi vide W.P. (CRL) 514/2024 & CRL.M.A. 4684-4686/2024.
Janmanjay Kumar & ANR .... Petitioners
Versus
Life Insurance Corporation &ORS. .......
Respondents
The above petition is disposed of by Court vide Order dated-14.02.2024. We are attaching the Court Order for your reference.
Sir, in compliance with Hon'ble CIC award, the revised information as received from the deemed CPIO of concerned department has been provided within the prescribed time and no information was false or misleading or deliberately delayed I request you to please consider the above submission in favourable light and kindly close the show cause notice issued."
VI. A written explanation to the SCN issued has been received from Shri Debasish De, Regional Manager, vide letter dated 26.05.2025, stating as under:
"In compliance of the CIC order dated 11.07.2024 the respondent the then CPIO, Smt. R.Hemalatha had provided the reply for show cause notice to CIC which is reproduced below:Page 9 of 15
Regarding query no.1 and 2 pertaining to the Zonal Office, your kind self has accepted our replies as appropriate. I would like to kindly intimate that I have Joined as CPIO, North Zone on 18.04.2024 and reply to the RTI application has been submitted by the earlier CPIO, Ms. Veena Stella Lakra, then Regional Manager (CRM/PS), whose explanation letter also has been attached herewith.
Regarding query nos.3 to 5 pertaining to Divisional Office, Delhi Division -2, the explanation letter of the concerned CPIO, Shri. Rajesh Tikoo, has been uploaded by him. As directed, the CPIO Shri. Rajesh Tikoo, has sent revised reply in respect of the above said 3 queries, to the appellant, Ms.Pallavi Nandan.
Sir, we express our deep regret for any inadvertent error made, in understanding and replying to the RTI queries raised. We assure you that we will be more diligent in replying to RTI queries, keeping in mind the spirit of RTI Act.
Sir, I request to please consider the above submission in favourable light and to kindly close the , show cause notice issued.
In compliance of CIC order dated 11.07.2024the respondent the then CPIO, Smt. Veena Stella Lakra had provided the reply for show cause notice to CIC which is reproduced below:
RTI application of Ms. Pallavi Nandan dated 06.02.2023 was replied by me on 15.02.2023. I had replied to Question number 1 and 2 and informed the applicant that question number 3, 4 and 5 will be replied by CPIO Divisional Office-II Delhi.
The query number 1 and 2 to which I had submitted my reply on 15.02.2023 has been found to be appropriate by the commission as mentioned in CIC decision dated 11.07.2024.
View above I request your kind self to please consider my submission in favourable light and close the Show Cause notice issued.
In compliance of CIC order dated 11.07.2024 the respondent CPIO (Sh. Rajesh Tikoo) had provided the revised reply for point 3 to 5 on 01.08.2024 to the appellant which is reproduced below:
Query No.(3):Loss due to leave of Janmanjay Kumar as ABMS in BO 116 on 13th June 2022 and 24th June 2022 Reply: No such record is being maintained. Further it is informed that as per Statement of Imputation of Lapses dated 09.12.2022 issued to Shri Janmanjay Page 10 of 15 Kumar, then Assistant Branch Manager-Sales(Branch 116) mentioned at Point No.3 that "his deliberate absence without prior information on 13.06.2022 when the Marketing Manager was to visit Branch office and again on 24.06.2022 when the day was being celebrated as ULIP Day in all the Branches of Delhi Division-2, adversely affected the sale of our new business performance".
Query No.(4):Details of explanation call given for loss due to sanctioned leave during leave from 1" April 2022 to 31 December 2022 Reply: No explanation has been called from any employee for only reason of loss due to sanctioned leave for the mentioned period in Delhi Divisional office-2 Query No.(5): Process of taking leave in emergency for treatment of mother to be wife of 7 month Reply: The query is not clear. However in the spirit of RTI, it is informed that rules related to various type of leaves available to an employee of Life Insurance Corporation of India are available on our website www.licindia.in which is in public domain. The applicant can view these rules by following the path given below www.licindia.in -RTI Centre -Disclosure II- Powers and Duties of its officers and employees Staff Rules 1960(Chapter V) - Holidays and Leaves (copy of the same is also enclosed).
Submission by The CPIO, Delhi DO 2 for Notice of Hearing dated 28.05.2025:
"As per the award of the Hon'ble CIC dated 11.07.2024, CPIO was show caused for not providing the information sought on poin Nos.3 to 5 of the RTI application and also respondent was directed to provide the revised information on point No.3 to 5 of the RT application free of cost within three weeks time from the date of receipt of the order. The award of the Hon'ble CIC was dul complied with and revised information vide our letter dated 01.08.2024 was provided to the applicant within the prescribed time Our explanation dated 02.08.2024 in the matter along with FO and SOIL was also uploaded on the CIC website on same day. In this regards, my humble submission is as under:
RTI application of Ms. Pallavi Nandan was partially transferred from Northern Zonal Office on 06.02.2023 in r/o point nos. 3 to 5 as under:
Query No.(3):Loss due to leave of Janmanjay Kumar as ABMS in 80 116 on 13 June 2022 and 24th June 2022 Query No.(4):Details of explanation call given for loss due to sanctioned leave during leave from 1" April 2022 to 31" December 2022 Page 11 of 15 Query No.(5): Process of taking leave in emergency for treatment of mother to be wife of 7 month The applicant (Ms.Pallavi Nandan) in her RTI application did not mention any relationship with Mr.Janmanjay Kumar. Hence the desired information under query no. 3 & 4 was not provided as per provisions of section 8(1)(j) being 3 party information. However it was informed to the applicant that loss in business due to absence of Shri Janmanjay Kumar is not measureable. Query No. 5 was not clear and hence replied as such.
The queries were replied on the basis of information provided by the deemed CPIOs of concerned Divisional Office departments. The Imputation of Lapses dated 09.12.2022 issued to Shri Janmanjay Kumar, then Assistant Branch Manager-Sales(Branch 116) mentioned at Point No.3 that his absence without prior information on 13.06.2022 when the Marketing Manager was to visit Branch office and again on 24.06.2022 when the day was being celebrated as ULIP Day in all the Branches of Delhi Division-2, adversely affected the sale of our new business performance. The employee has availed one day CL on 13.06.2022 and One day short duration Privilege leave on 24.06.2022. As per Staff Regulations in force, Leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Casual leave may normally be availed of only after sanction by the competent authority but one day's casual leave may be availed of without prior sanction in case of unforeseen emergency provided the competent authority is promptly notified of the circumstances in which prior sanction could not be obtained Being Assistant Branch Manager (Sales) of the Branch, he was directly responsible to coordinate with field force including Development Officers, Agents and Life Insurance Advisors, guide them to make the Special Sales Day successful. His efforts on the mentioned special Sales Promotional Days would have augmented the sale new policies. The quantum of this probable/notional loss to the organization is not measurable in terms of number of policies premium income. On previous occasions also he used to take leave without prior approval on important business di viz08.03.2021 to 10.03.2021, 30.03.2021 to 31.03.2021 and 05.04.2021. However the Competent Authority sanctioned his leave 08.03.2021 to 10.03.2021, 30.03.2021 to 31.03.2021 and 05.04.2021 as short duration Privilege Leave and did not treat them unauthorised absence.
It is also pertinent to mention that the employee Shri Janmanjay Kumar, has not exhausted the internal mechanism for redressal his grievance against the competent Authority order dated 06.07.2023. The employee has made an appeal dated 30.09.2023 Zonal Manager against the order of penalty dated Page 12 of 15 06.07.2023 which was subsequently rejected by Zonal Manager. Further memorial was made to MD cum CEO in the matter.
Further as an additional information, we would like to add that Applicant has filed writ petition in the High Court of Delhi vide W. (CRL) 514/2024 & CRL.M.A. 4684-4686/2024.
Janmanjay Kumar&ANR ... Petitioners Versus Life Insurance Corporation &ORS. ......Respondents
The above petition is disposed of by Court vide Order dated-14.02.2024. We are attaching the Court Order. The order dated 14.02.2024 states as under:
"After canvassing some arguments, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner seeks to withdraw the petition to tak recourse to appropriate remedies available in law.
Petition along with pending applications stands disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for in accordance with law."
Sir, in compliance with Hon'ble CIC award, the revised information as received from the deemed CPIO of concerned departme has been provided within the prescribed time and no information was false or misleading or deliberately delayed.
I request you to please consider the above submission in favourable light and kindly close the show cause notice issued."
As per CIC order dated 11.07.2024, as regards point Nos. 1 and 2, the Commission finds that appropriate reply has been given on these points by the respondents. We had provided the revised complete information from Point 3 to 5 from the concerned CPIO to the appellant.It is emphasized that no information was evasive, misleading or deliberately delayed by the concerned CPIO.
We request you to please consider the above submission in favourable light and kindly close the show cause notice issued."
Page 13 of 15Decision in respect of Show-Cause proceedings:
VII. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records observes that Smt. R. Hemalatha, then CPIO-cum-Secretary, and Shri Rajesh Tikko, Manager (retd.), the then CPIO/Manager, in compliance of the order of the Commission, have provided a suitable reply with respect to point No. 3 to 5 of the RTI Application to the Appellant vide letter dated 01.08.2024, based on available records and under the provisions of the RTI Act only such information as is available and in the form held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The CPIO is neither supposed to create information that is not a part of the record, nor is he required to interpret information nor provide clarification. Therefore, no intervention of the Commission is required in the instant case for further adjudication.
VIII. The written explanations filed by both the PIOs are found reasonable and satisfactory. No mala fide is established on part of the PIOs while replying to the RTI application. In the absence of any mala fide on part of the PIOs, it would not be appropriate to initiate any action for imposition of penalty on the PIOs. Therefore, the show cause notices issued PIOs, are hereby dropped.
The show cause notice is hereby dropped, and the matter stands disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari ( वनोद कुमार तवार )
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
(S. Anantharaman)
Dy. Registrar
011- 26181927
Date
Page 14 of 15
Copy To:
THE FAA, REGIONAL MANAGER (CRM),
LIC, NORTHERN ZONAL OFFICE,
13TH FLOOR, JIWAN BHARTI BUILDING,
CONNAUGHT CIRCUS, NEW DELHI-110001
Page 15 of 15
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)