Details of appointment of Shri Sital Methwani, Shri Ram Methwani’s son as agent of UIICL were sought - CIC: Give the designation of the authority appointing Shri Sital Methwani as an agent in Defence Colony branch of UIICL and the date of appointment
Date of Decision : April 25, 2016
1. Vide his RTI application dated 4.8.2015, Shri Rajeev Jain sought information regarding the post and place of posting of Shri Ram Methwani in the last 15 years; list of complaints with details against him pending or decided during that period; details of appointment of Shri Sital Methwani, Shri Ram Methwani’s son as agent and who, when and how authorized the appointment/placement; assets movable and immovable; policy of the company for an employee found indulging in loss making decision and the basis of his latest promotion.
2. The CPIO, through his letter dated 21.8.2015, provided a point wise reply including the details of the postings but denied information on disclosure of property returns. Dissatisfied with the CPIO’s response, the appellant approached the first appellate authority stating that he had not received censure letters and decisions on complaints and also as to who authorized the appointment of Shri Sital Methwani, etc. In addition, he sought the certified copy of Promotion Policy of Officers, 2006 along with amendment to them till date. The FAA upheld the CPIO’s decision and provided the copy of CDA Rules and Promotion Policy of Officers, 2006. Not satisfied with the adjudication of his appeal, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that the details of complaints, details of appointment of Shri Sital Methwani and details of Shri Ram Methwani had not been provided to him.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant reiterated his request for information on the three points mentioned in second appeal. The respondents stated that they had provided point wise information to the appellant. They clearly mentioned that only one complaint had been received against Shri Ram Methwani which was replied to and no vigilance case was pending against him as on 8.12.2014. They could not provide the details of assets of Shri Ram Methwani as this was his personal information. As regards the appointment of Shri Sital Methwani as an agent, he had been given a licence by IRDA.
4. The Commission observes that the respondents have already given the information about complaints received against Shri Ram Methwani. The assets of Shri Ram Methwani cannot be provided being third party information. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande has observed as follows:-
“12. The petitioner herein sought for copies of all memos, show cause notices and censure/ punishment awarded to the third respondent from his employer and also details viz. movable and immovable properties and also the details of his investments, lending and borrowing from Banks and other financial institutions. Further, he has also sought for the details of gifts stated to have accepted by the third respondent, his family members and friends and relatives at the marriage of his son. The information mostly sought for finds a place in the income tax returns of the third respondent. The question that has come up for consideration is whether the above-mentioned information sought for qualifies to be “personal information” as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
14. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are “personal information” which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
5. As far as point 3 of the RTI application regarding details of appointment of Shri Sital Methwani is concerned, the Commission directs the CPIO to check the record and give the designation of the authority appointing Shri Sital Methwani as an agent in Defence Colony branch of UIICL and the date of appointment, within 21 days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
Citation: Shri Rajeev Jain v. United India Insurance Co Ltd, in Appeal No . CIC/MP/A/2015/002074