O R D E R

1. The complainant/ appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), United India Insurance Company Limited, Bhopal, seeking information on four points, including, inter-alia:-

“i. Which specific section of the CDA rule was violated by me, under which the above said charge sheet was issued to me?

ii. Specify name of post and/or name of official under whose recommendation the said charge sheet was issued to me.

iii. Specify name of post and/or name of the official who issued the penalty to me along with all the documents taken into consideration for issuing penalty to me.

iv. With reference to the grievances raised by the applicant, kindly provide the specific sections of the CDA Rules under which the employee can proceed against any decision as per procedure prescribed in the CDA Rules.

Also provide the details of the specific section of the CDA Rules under which the complaints mentioned above fall.”

2. Being aggrieved with the response given by the respondent, the complainant/ appellant filed a complaint u/Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act and also filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to her and requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.

Hearing:

3. The complainant/ appellant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Ms. Hema Limaye, Asst. Manager/ CPIO, attended the hearing through audio-call.

4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 28.06.2021 and the same has been taken on record.

5. The complainant/ appellant submitted that complete and correct information has not been provided to her by the respondent on her RTI application dated 31.10.2019. Further she submitted that a Second Appeal no. CIC/UIICL/A/2019/158666, is also pending before the Commission for adjudication on 16.08.2021 on the same subject matter, and hence pleaded that both the matters be heard and adjudicated together.

6. The respondent submitted that the then CPIO vide its letter dated 11.11.2019, furnished a reply to the complainant/ appellant that the RTI application is in the nature of a query which does not fall under the purview of the RTI Act. He further submitted that the FAA vide its order dated 21.11.2019, had also upheld the reply furnished by the CPIO and disposed of the First Appeal.

Decision:

7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that queries of the complainant/ appellant are in the nature of seeking clarification/explanation/opinion/advice/confirmation from the CPIO. But the CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to compile information as per the desire of the complainant/ appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the reasons/opinions/advices can only be provided to the applicants if it is available on record of the public authority. The CPIO cannot create information in the manner as sought by the complainant/ appellant. The CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot be expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him.

8. In this regard, the Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:

“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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.”

In this c