Reasons for issuing only warning instead of initiating disciplinary proceedings while acting on appellant’s complaint was denied stating it is not ‘information’ as per Sec 2(f) - CIC: the respondents have provided complete information; appeal dismissed

ORDER

1. The appellant, Shri Anil Kumar Singhal, submitted RTI application dated 21.10.2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), LIC of India, Agra seeking information on three points relating issue of warning to the Manager and Cashier on his complaint dated 30.8.2012, reasons for issuing only warning instead of initiating disciplinary proceedings and sought guidelines/rules for taking administrative action by the competent authority.

2. The CPIO vide letter dated 20.11.2013 denied information on Point No. 1 under the provisions of Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act; in response to Point 2 the CPIO invoked the provisions of Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act and in response to Point No. 3 the appellant was informed that administrative action is taken by the competent authority after taking into consideration the circumstances, evidence and facts of the case. Aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant preferred appeal on 25.11.2013 before the FAA. The FAA vide order dated 24.12.2013 concurred with the reply of the CPIO.

3. Thereafter the appellant preferred the second appeal before the Commission.

4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant informed the Commission telephonically that due to his illness he would not be able to attend the hearing through videoconferencing. The respondents stated that that the outcome of appellant’s complaint was informed to the appellant in response to Point No.1; on Point No. 2 the CPIO had sought reasons for issuing of warning against the Manager and Cashier, instead of initiating disciplinary proceedings, which did not fall within the definition of ‘information’ as per Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act and in response to Point 3 the appellant had been adequately replied to. The respondents had already CIC/MP/A/2014/000196 1 provided the outcome of the case and even gave a copy of the warning issued to the Manager and Cashier of the Branch.

5. The Commission holds that the respondents provided complete information permissible under the RTI Act to the appellant. The Commission finds no reason to interfere with the decision of the respondents. The appeal is disposed of.

(Manjula Prasher)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Anil Kumar Singhal v. LIC of India in Appeal: No. CIC/MP/A/2014/000196