Details of non-sanctioning of the stagnation increment of the appellant & its relation to the Chargesheet and whether any adverse entry in the ACR was the reason behind such deferment of his increment - CIC: provide copy of ACR
1. The appellant Shri Subhabrata Sengupta has submitted RTI application dated 10 August 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), LIC of India, Kolkata seeking details of non sanctioning of the stagnation increment of the appellant till date and its relation to the Chargesheet dated 20/10/2011.
2. Vide CPIO order dated 10 September 2012, appellant was informed that disciplinary proceedings in pending in the case and other information.
3. It was further informed buy order dated 20 October 2012, no information is available.
4. The appellant preferred first appeal dated 19 October 2012 to the First Appellate Authority (FAA).
5. Vide FAA Order dated 9 November 2012, CPIO’s order was upheld as. It was further informed that information regarding ACRs sought attracts section 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; of the RTI Act and hence the signatures are severed u/s 10 of the Act.
6. Being aggrieved and not being satisfied by the above response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
7. The matter was heard today. The respondent Shri S.R. Choudhary, CPIO and Ms. A. Biswas, FAA were present. The appellant submitted that he was not satisfied by the information provided by the respondents, with reference to reasons for non sanction of stagnation increment as to whether any adverse entry in the Annual Confidential Report was the reason behind such deferment of his increment and whether LIC had formulated his own rules and regulations for not providing Annual Confidential Report. From the reply of CPIO and FAA and from their submissions during the hearing it has been seen that the information asked for by the appellant in the RTI application has been duly provided to him. Regarding reasons for non sanction of stagnation of increment the CPIO had clearly informed him that since a disciplinary proceeding under provision of LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 is pending stagnation increment has not been released. Similarly the other parts of RTI applicant had been replied to. As regards the point whether the LIC of India had made their own rules for not giving the copy of the Annual Confidential Report, the respondent had not given clear reply to the appellant. The appellant also submitted that while he had been provided the photocopies of the Confidential Report asked for, the copy of the Confidential Report for the period 01/01/2011 to 31/12/2011 appeared to be partly marked in hand. He requested for a duly certified photocopy of the Confidential Report for this period.
8. The respondents will provide a duly certified photocopy of the Confidential Report of the appellant for the period 01/01/2011 to 31/12/2011.
9. The respondent will also give a clear and specific reply to the appellant on para 4(b) of the appellant’s RTI request dated 10.8.2012 within 7 days of the receipt of the orders of the Commission.
Citation: Shri Subhabrata Sengupta v. Life Insurance Corporation of India in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2013/000363/MP