ASHOK SHRIVASTAV Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Shri Ashok Shrivastav submitted RTI application dated 09.06.2014 to the CPIO, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (NIACL), Mumbai seeking information in respect of punishment imposed upon him for reduction in basic salary by one stage for one year and sought evidence in accordance with CDA Rules, Office Discipline Order observed, verified and found correct by CMD which established that he was regularly coming late and leaving office early and thereby confirming that the punishment imposed was just and reasonable; details of action taken as per CDA rules by Branch Incharge, Divisional Manager, Regional Manager for his alleged late coming and early going; since audit report was submitted on the basis of facts observed by auditors and sought details of observation of the auditors; etc. through five points.

(2.) THE CPIO vide letter dated 30.06.2014 informed the appellant with reference to points 1, 4 and 5 that information sought was query/explanation in nature and did not fall under the definition of 'information' on points 2 and 3 the appellant was informed that the information sought was not held by the Head Office. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 14.07.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 31.07.2014 while upholding the decision of the CPIO held that the appellant has retired from the services of NIACL in February 2012 prior to which he was awarded a minor penalty of reduction of one increment for one year. In the background of this disciplinary action against him, he nurtures a grievance. He has pressed a series of RTI applications seeking information pertaining to the fate of his memorial to CMD, facts/evidences under CDA rules supporting punishment imposed upon him. In this regard he relied on the Commission's order dated 31.05.2007 in the matter of Shri Deshmukh Suresh Bhagwanrao vs. CBEC [case No. CIC/AT/A/2007/00368] in which the Commission held "Civil servants and employees of public authorities, of various hues, have found in the RTI Act a prolific avenue for the redressal of their grievances - real or assumed. Commission has received petitions from employees of public authorities on such matters as implementation of Court and Tribunal orders, by the public authority; action taken on the petitions in service matters filed by the employees; demand for explanation about why on employees was transferred from one post to another, reasons why a public authority started any disciplinary proceeding against the employee; why was an employee not empanelled for promotion; and so on. Irrespective of the merit of such RTI - applications and irrespective of whether these are admissible under the RTI Act, the important point that emerges is that employees of the public authority are using the RTI Act to pressurize, brow -beat or harass the public authority in order to force them to take decisions or rescind a decision in respect of a certain employee. Such employees may or may not succeed in their endeavours, but the fact that they use the RTI Act in a given way shows that they are treating the Act as a means to stymie the disciplinary control of their superiors in the public authority."

(3.) THEREAFTER the appellant filed the present appeal before the Commission on the grounds of non -receipt of any evidence leading to establishing of the charges as stated in the chargesheet.