Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.60 seconds)Section 20 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Mrn K Aggarwal vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 30 June, 2016
The applicant has made an RTI application dated 18.10.2023 and drawn attention
of CPIO on the decision dated 30.6.2016 of CIC of the case of Sh. N. K. Aggarwal Vs. the
New Delhi Assurance Company Limited in appeal no. CIC/MP/A/016/000056 and 000532
in which the CIC has observed that the RTI applicant has right to know the reasons, as
available in the records of the department, for repudiation of his claim as he is the one
who has been adversely affected by the decision of the Department.
Govind vs Army Hq on 23 February, 2017
10. Further kind attention is invited to the case of Shri Govind Jha vs. Army HQ in
CIC/AT/A/2006/00039 dated 01.06.2006. In this case, the Commission has held that
'although the rules of disciplinary proceedings provide for disclosure of all documents
and information which constitute the basis for the disciplinary action against an employee,
yet such employees demand additional information pertaining to them through the RTI
Act. These demands are mostly about disclosure of file-notings and other materials which
otherwise would not be available to the employee under the Disciplinary Proceedings
Rules. It has been the consistent position of the Commission that a disciplinary enquiry
assumes the characteristics of an ongoing investigation and the material thereof cannot
be disclosed under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.'..."
Nityananda Pramanik vs Lic Of India And Others .... Opposite ... on 26 August, 2021
Furthermore, the attention of CPIO
was also invited to decision dated 30.6.2016 in appeal no. CIC/MP/A/2016/000133 in the
case of Shri Nityanand Pramanik vs. LIC of India has observed that a charged employee
as a right to obtain information pertaining to documents on the basis of which he is
charged.
1