Information relating to the outcome of disciplinary proceedings against some officials was denied u/s 8(1)(d) - FAA furnished the general outcome of the proceedings - CIC: no larger public interest will be served by providing the whole decision
13 Mar, 2014Facts:
1. The appellant, Shri P. Manoharan, has submitted RTI application dated 07 January 2013, before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Chennai; seeking information relating to the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings against S. Venkatesan, AAO, Sr. No. 583135; Sri K Karmegam, Record Clerk, Sr. No. 504889 and Sri C Natarajan, Record Clerk, Sr. No. 563113 of LIC of India, Branch CBO 2.
2. Vide order dated 7 February 2013, CPIO denied the information under Section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act, 2005. Not satisfied by the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred appeal dated 11 February 2013, to the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Vide order dated 11 March 2013, the FAA furnished the general outcome of the disciplinary proceedings but refused to furnish the copy of final order in that regard under Section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act, 2005 as it involved divulging of third party information.
3. Being aggrieved and not satisfied by the above response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard today via videoconferencing. Shri P. Manoharan, the appellant attended the hearing from Chennai. Shri R. Parthiben, Manager, P&IR represented on behalf of Appellate Authority along with Shri V. Govindrajan, Manager, CPIO attended the hearing from Chennai.
5. The appellant submitted that he had been given part reply to his RTI request. A copy of the final order regarding the disciplinary proceedings against Shri C. Natrajan and Shri K. Karmegam, Record Clerk have not been provided to him. The respondents submitted that the two officials mentioned by him and the appellant himself were involved in an incident which took place in the branch. The appellant was also charge sheeted in that case and has filed a writ petition against the order passed in the disciplinary case. They also stated that the punishment awarded to both the officials has been duly intimated to the appellant. The appellant had taken exemption under 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; which however is not applicable in the present case.
Decision notice
6. It is seen that outcome of the disciplinary proceedings had been duly intimated to the appellant and that no larger public interest will be served by providing a copy of the whole decision to the appellant. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed and the case is closed at the Commission’s end.
(Manjula Prasher)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri P. Manoharanv. LIC in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2013/000610/MP