Central Information Commission
Kishore Kumar vs Central Ground Water Board on 9 July, 2021
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के न्दर्ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागर्,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िदल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No. CIC/CGWBD/A/2019/648168
Mr. Kishore Kumar ... अपीलकतार्/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ...पर्ितवादी /Respondent
M/o. Water Resources, R.D. & G.R.
Central Ground Water Board, Bhujal
Bhawan, NH-4, Faridabad, Haryana-
121001
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
RTI : 19-03-2019 FA : 19-04-2019 SA : 20-08-2019
CPIO : 29-03-2019 FAO : 21-05-2019 Hearing : 01-07-2021
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/o. Water Resources, R.D. & G.R. Central Ground Water Board, Faridabad. The appellant seeking information on seven points including inter alia:-
"I. Regarding status of promotion for post of regional director (Sci):-
a. As per the status of filling of vacant post in CGWB, proposals for 6 Regional Directors (Sci) post is sent to MOWR, RD & GR on 5th Feb 2018 and further remaining pending as on November 2018 as set out in CGWB web site. Please furnish the copy of the proposal details along with the vacancy details;
b. What is the latest status of DPC as per the proposal sent. Please furnish the relevant documents including copy of the note sheets of the relevant the file or files for the period from 5th feb 2018 till date;Page 1 of 5
c. Whether any Placement Committee (or similar body) is constituted by the Competent Authority regarding posting of Regional Directors in CGWB either on promotion or without promotion. Copies of the relevant documents may please be furnished including mandate of committee, any minutes of meeting held by such committee. II.Regarding transfer of Group A and Group B officers since December 11, 2017:-
a. Good number of Group A and Group B officers were transferred in CGWB in the recent past. Please confirm compliance of said transfers with rotational transfer policy of CGWB as per file no. 25/80/2014- CGWB issued by Under Secretary of Govt of India dated December 11, 2017 (RTP). If any transfers were undertaken which is not strictly as per RTP, pls provide list of Group A & Group B officers whose transfers were undertaken since December 11, 2017 in violation of said RTP;
b. Please furnish the list of Group A and Group B officers working in CGWB, as on date, who are eligible for transfers as per RTP with their accumulated tenure in the place of posting.
c. Please furnish the list of Group A and Group B officers who have been already transferred as per RTP since December 11, 2017 Etc."
2. The CPIO responded on 29-03-2019. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 19-04-2019 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 21-05-2019. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) 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 to direct him to provide the information sought.
Hearing:
3. The appellant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Shri. Rakesh Gupta, CPIO attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 13.04.2021 and the same has been taken on record.
5. The appellant submitted that 7 questions were raised and replies were served by the CPIO therein. However, replies for point 1(b) and 2(c) are evasive. Appellant further brings to notice of the commission that a letter was issued by the CPIO stating that the file notings cannot be shared with the Appellant as it is exempt Page 2 of 5 under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, the file notings do not fall under any exemption of RTI Act. The appellant further contends that all the transfer orders should be compiled together.
6. The respondent submitted vide letter dated 27-03-2019 that the information sought for is voluminous and therefore the Appellant can seek such information in person by visiting the office. CPIO orally submitted that the note sheets are third party information and therefore falls under the exempted category and with regards to the transfer orders, the orders are not compiled as on date. Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the Appellant raises issues with respect to the reply for point 1 (b) and point 2(c) of the RTI Application. The Respondent orally submitted that the information sought by the Appellant qua note sheets contain third party information such as the APR, vigilance report, integrity report and minor and major reports etc. of individual employee. The Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Thdc India Ltd vs R.K.Raturi on 8 July, 2014, the relevant portion of the matter is reproduced as under:‐ "1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 04th January, 2013 passed by the Central Information Commission (for short „CIC‟) whereby the petitioner has been directed to provide photocopies of the DPC proceedings including the comparative grading statement pertaining to the recommended candidates as well as ACRs of the appellant himself for the period mentioned by him in his RTI application.
2. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced hereinbelow:-
―4. We have carefully considered the contents of the RTI application and the response of the CPIO. The objective of the Right to Information (RTI) Act is to bring about transparency in the functioning of the public authorities. All decision making in the government and all its undertakings must be objective and transparent. It is only by placing the details of all decision making in the public domain that such objectivity and transparency can be ensured. Therefore, we do not see any reason why the DPC proceedings, specially, the comparative gradings of those recommended for promotion should not be disclosed. It is not at all correct to claim that such information is held in a fiduciary capacity. After all, the DPC operates as a part of the administrative decision making process in any organisation. The material that it considers is also generated within the organisation. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the DPC proceedings including the recommendations made by it can be said to be held by the public authority in a fiduciary capacity. About the ACRs of the Appellant, the Supreme Page 3 of 5 Court of India has already held that the civilian employees must be allowed access to their confidential rolls, specially when these are held out against them in the matter of their career promotion. Following the Supreme Court order, the Department of Personnel and Training, we understand, has already issued a circular for disclosure of ACR.
3. Mr. Neeraj Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impact of the impugned order passed by CIC is that the petitioner would be required to give information pertaining to DPC proceedings including the comparative grading statement pertaining to the recommended candidates, which information is excluded under the provisions of Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. He emphasizes that the information directed to be released pertaining to other employees of the petitioner is being held by the petitioner in fiduciary capacity and would amount to disclosure of personal information.
9.1. In my view, the right to obtain her own ACRs inheres in the respondent which cannot be denied to the respondent under the provisions of Section 8(1)(d), (e) and
(j) of the RTI Act. The ACRs are meant to inform an employee as to the manner in which he has performed in the given period and the areas which require his attention, so that he may improve his performance qua his work.
13. Consequently, this Court is of the view that ACR grading/ratings as also the marks given to the candidates based on the said ACR grading/ratings and their interview marks contained in the DPC proceedings can be disclosed only to the concerned employee and not to any other employee as that would constitute third party information. This Court is also of the opinion that third party information can only be disclosed if a finding of a larger public interest being involved is given by CIC and further if third party procedure as prescribed under Sections 11(1) and 19(4) of the RTI Act is followed.
14. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded back to CIC for consideration of petitioner‟s defences under Sections 8(1)(e) and Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and if the CIC is of the view that larger public interest is involved, it shall thereafter follow the third party procedure as prescribed under Sections 11(1) and 19(4) of the RTI Act."
8. Based on the above observations, it is noted by the Commission that the DPC contains third party information. The disclosure of third party information is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, the respondent can always provide information related to the Appellant. Therefore, the CPIO is directed to share information of DPC only with regard to the appellant himself and the transfer orders as it exists on record. Thus, the CPIO is directed to provide a revised reply to point 1(b) and 2 (c) as per the provisions of the RTI Act, free of Page 4 of 5 cost to the appellant within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the commission.
9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज कु मार गु ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) िदनांक / Date : 01-07-2021 Authenticated true copy (अिभपर्मािणत सत्यािपत पर्ित) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमार्), Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682) Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO M/o. Water Resources, R.D. & G.R. Central Ground Water Board, Bhujal Bhawan, NH-4, Faridabad, Haryana-121001
2. Mr. Kishore Kumar Page 5 of 5