CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000187
Dated, the 29th May, 2009.
Appellant : Shri S.S. Buch
Respondents : Life Insurance Corporation of India
Pursuant to Commission’s notice dated 06.04.2009, this matter
came up for hearing on 27.05.2009. Both parties were present.
2. Appellant’s RTI-application dated 19.04.2008 comprised the
following query:-
“I request under ‘Right to Information Act’ and reason for
denying my application of treating me ON DUTY AND FOR
REGRETING LEGAL HELP and the copy of necessary notes and
decisions may be supplied to me.”
3. He received a reply from the CPIO dated 29.05.2008 and his
first-appeal was decided by the Appellate Authority on 19.09.2008.
4. The RTI-application was received by the Mail Sections/OS
Department of the public authority on 23.04.2008.
5. It is noticed that there has been delay at the level of the CPIO in
providing the information and there has been substantial delay in
disposing of the appellant’s first-appeal by the Appellate Authority.
6. Show-cause notice under Section 20(1) for penalty be issued to
the CPIO. Show-cause notice under Section 19(8)(b) for award of
compensation of Rs.10,000 to the appellant, be issued to the head of
the public authority, the Chairman of LIC of India, repeated to the
Appellate Authority, Shri R.R. Rai, Zonal Manager for the delay in
disposing of appellant’s RTI-application and the detriment which it
caused to the appellant.
7. In the matter of the original appeal, I find that the relevant
documents relating to RTI-application had been provided to the
appellant by the CPIO and the Appellate Authority. What the appellant
has not received is the reason why his request for being defended at the
cost of the public authority for a prosecution started against him on the
AT-29052009-34.doc
Page 1 of 2
complaint of a private party ⎯ which bears all the hallmarks of a
malicious prosecution ⎯ was rejected by the public authority. As an
employee of the public authority, the appellant is naturally feeling
crestfallen because despite evidence to the contrary, he is still being
faced with a prosecution which has been thrust upon him due to the
action of a private third-party. He believes ⎯ and quite rightly ⎯ that
an organisation of the LIC’s standing and reputation must make an
informed decision about protecting the interests of its employee,
especially when it is established (internally) that such employee had
committed no wrong. Appellant stated that the LIC had conducted an
internal investigation regarding whether he was culpable in the matter
in which he was facing a police investigation and prosecution, and the
result of that enquiry favoured him. If this is so, there should be no
reason why the interest of this appellant should be allowed to go
abegging especially when he is facing a critical moment in his life,
thrust with a prosecution for no fault of his. It was stated during the
hearing that the incident which is now the subject-matter of a
prosecution occurred when appellant was an employee of another sister
organization of LIC, viz. LIC Housing Finance Ltd. The LIC Chairman is
the Chairman of the LICHFL too. Appellant rightly believes that given
the facts of the case, the denial of legal assistance to him was entirely
misconceived since he is presently the employee of LIC and it was
always open to the LIC management to establish contact with LICHFL to
work out some way of defending their employee’s bona-fide interest in
the court of law. That it was not done leaves a lot of questions
unanswered. Appellant believes that he has been left in the lurch by
the very organizations which ought to be active in defending him
against malicious prosecution.
8. I would like to ask the managements of both LIC and LICHFL to
take a fresh look at this appellant’s case and to re-examine whether he
deserved their assistance in the prosecution which he has been made to
face by a private party. If the internal investigations of the public
authority have shown that the appellant was free from blame, there
should be no reason why his case should not be defended in the law
courts by the two organizations.
9. Appeal disposed of with the above directions. Complaint
proceedings to continue.
10. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AT-29052009-34.doc
Page 2 of 2