CIC:The complainant was not present to point out any shortcoming(s) in the contention made by the respondents - CIC: the complainant has not specified as to how the information furnished to him was misleading and false - CIC: Appeal disposed of
2 May, 2015ORDER
CIC/MP/C/2014/000119
1. The complainant, Shri Amit Kumar Banik, submitted RTI application dated December 16, 2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai seeking copies of his ACRs for the year 201011, 201112 & 201213 and information regarding any orders/ directives to United India Insurance Co. Ltd. to mandatorily communicate the ACR or its entries to its employees etc., through a total of 6 points.
2. Vide reply dated January 27, 2014, the CPIO furnished the information. The complainant had not preferred any appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA).
3. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the complainant preferred complaint before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The complainant was not present during hearing in spite of a notice having been issued to him. The respondents stated that the complainant had not approached the first appellate authority and had directly approached the Commission that information as available had been furnished to the complainant keeping in view the rules and instructions on the subject. The complainant had been furnished with the ratings for the period 2011-2012 and stated that he had not completed one year in 2010-11 so no ACR was available for this period and that from 2013-14 onwards the employee can download the ACR as it was available on net for the employee. The respondents contended that in accordance with the decision of CIC regarding the applicability of section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 in CIC/KY/C/2014/000138 dated 9.10.2014 categorically held that:
“…It is pertinent to mention here that the most important criterion among the other criteria mentioned u/s 18(1)(a) to (e) of the RTI Act, 2005, appears to be that complainant must be given incomplete, misleading and false information…”
but in the present case the complainant had not explained as to what was misleading about the information provided to him.
5. The Commission observed that the complainant had not specified as to how the information furnished to him was misleading and false. Moreover, the complainant was not present during hearing to point out any shortcoming(s) in information furnished to him. The Commission finds no reason to intervene in the matter. The complaint is disposed of.
CIC/MP/C/2014/000179
1. The complainant, Shri Amit Kumar Banik, submitted RTI application dated March 7, 2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai seeking statement of month wise rental payment particulars towards company Leased Residential Accommodation and corresponding entries towards HRR, perquisites, Income tax computation and TDS since October 2011 till date i.e during financial years 201112, 201213 & 201314 which was being accounted in his account etc., through a total of 9 points. 2. Vide reply dated January 6, 2014, the CPIO denied the information by claiming exemption u/s 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act, 2005 as disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the complainant and disclosure of information could impede the process of investigation. The complainant had not preferred any appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA) in respect of his RTI application dated 7.3.2014
3. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the complainant preferred complaint before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The complainant was not present during hearing in spite of a notice having been issued to him. The respondents submitted that information as available with them had been already furnished to the complainant as the requisite information was already available in the salary slip & TDS forms (form 16). The respondents contended that in accordance with the decision of CIC regarding the applicability of section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 in CIC/KY/C/2014/000138 dated 9.10.2014, the Commission categorically held that:
“…It is pertinent to mention here that the most important criterion among the other criteria mentioned u/s 18(1)(a) to (e) of the RTI Act, 2005, appears to be that complainant must be given incomplete, misleading and false information…”
5. The complainant was not present to point out any shortcoming(s) in the contention made by the respondents. Having perused the documents available, it is observed that the complainant has no where mentioned that he had been given misleading or incomplete information. The complainant was mainly aggrieved by the refusal/denial of desired information by the CPIO concern. The complainant in his complaint before CIC has contended that the respondents denied the requisite information without giving specific reason against each of respective information sought by him as to how the desired information could impede the investigation.
6. In view of the above, the Commission accepts the submission of the respondents that the requisite information was available in salary slip, TDS forms (form 16) which has been already given to complainant. The complaint is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Amit Kumar Banik v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. in Complaint No. CIC/MP/C/2014/000119 and CIC/MP/C/2014/000179