Central Information Commission
Dr.Madhumita Mondal vs Comptroller & Auditor General Of India on 25 August, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000560
Dated, the 25th August, 2009.
Appellant : Dr.Madhumita Mondal
Respondents : Comptroller & Auditor General of India
This matter came up for hearing through videoconferencing (VC) on 04.08.2009 with the appellant present at NIC's VC facility at Bilaspur and the respondents represented by the CPIO, Shri R. Srinivasan, Director (Legal) were present at the Commission's New Delhi office, from where the Commission conducted its hearing.
2. It is seen that the present second-appeal of the appellant is limited to queries at Sl.Nos.5 and 6 of her RTI-application dated 09.02.2009. These read as follows:-
"5. Please name the DPC members for DPCs conducted on 25/01/2005 and 2/9/2005 for promotion from DAG to Sr DAG. Please also name the SC/ST member in the above mentioned DPCs.
6. Copies of the DPC proceedings under which Ms Varsh Tiwari and Mr.A.K. Behara were promoted from DAG to Sr. DAG."
3. Through CPIO's communication dated 01.04.2009 and the decision of the Appellate Authority dated 06.05.2009, these items of information were declined to be disclosed citing exemption Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
4. Appellant has questioned respondents' surmise regarding those exemptions.
5. My directions are as follows:-
Item 5:
6. It is directed that the names of the members of the DPC for the periods mentioned in appellant's RTI-application shall be disclosed to her within two weeks of the receipt of this order. Citing Section 8(1)(g) AT-25082009-13.doc Page 1 of 4 to deny this information to the appellant is entirely misconceived. Commission had earlier authorized disclosure of most DPC-related details in its previous decisions (B.L. Sinha Vs. Company Affairs; Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2007/00256; Date of Decision: 03.05.2007) Item 6:
7. Here appellant has requested the DPC proceeding details of third-parties, viz. Ms.Varsh Tiwari and Mr.A.K. Behera, who were promoted from DAG to Sr. DAG rank.
8. Since in the past in its decision dated 31.12.2008 in Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00923; Rudra Kumar Rai Vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics, Commission had authorized disclosure of entire DPC proceedings to those who figured in any given proceeding, it follows from it that a DPC proceeding by itself is now a disclosable document and hence cannot be treated as confidential. Certain public authorities have started the practice of putting up DPC proceedings on their websites and making these freely available. It is thus seen that disclosure of DPC proceedings does not create any handicap for either the organization or any person who may or may not have figured in the DPC proceeding. This disclosure is, therefore, entirely justified.
9. Respondents pointed out that certain aspects of DPC proceedings, especially when these pertain to those other than the petitioner seeking the information, may be required to be held confidential. They cited the example of ACR gradings, which are invariably the part of DPC proceedings. In Commission's earlier orders, while ACR gradings of those figuring on the DPC proceedings have been allowed to be accessed by those to whom those ACR gradings pertained, no ACRs grades of third-parties have been allowed to be accessed by RTI petitioners. In Commission's Full Bench order dated 19.02.2009 in P.K. Sarin Vs. Directorate General of Works (CPWD); Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00422, direction has been given to allow a person to access his own ACR gradings but this order does not cover ACR gradings of third-parties sought to be accessed by RTI-petitioners.
10. In my view, therefore, while the DPC proceedings per-se should be allowed to be available in the public domain ⎯ to be accessed by all ⎯ that should not be true about ACR gradings which should be allowed to be accessed only by those to whom those gradings pertain individually and, not to others. In other words, a person should be allowed to see only his own ACRs grades and not his other colleagues'. AT-25082009-13.doc Page 2 of 4 It follows from it, that if the applicant for such information ⎯ like this petitioner ⎯ is one who is not one of those who figured on a DPC proceeding or was considered by the DPC, he should be allowed to access all DPC-related information except the ACRs and ACR grades of other employees, i.e. the third-parties.
11. In the light of the above, the following direction is given:-
(a) DPC proceedings shall be treated as a non-confidential and open documents and allowed to be accessed by anybody who seeks it, except for that part of the proceeding which may contain ACRs or ACRs grades.
(b) Even in respect of the ACRs and ACRs grades forming part of the DPC proceeding, that part of the ACRs or grades which pertain to an employee who might have been considered by the DPC as part of the proceeding, shall be supplied to that particular employee. In other words ACRs and ACRs grades shall be accessible to the employee to whom these pertain but not to others.
(c) In disclosing DPC-related information, the following procedure shall be followed:-
1. When the information is supplied to a person whose name figures in the DPC proceeding or who was considered in the proceeding, he will be provided the DPC proceeding along with his own ACRs and ACR grades, if he wishes to access them, but not of others.
2. Severance under Section 10(1) of the RTI Act shall be applied by the public authority / CPIO before transmitting DPC-related information to such an applicant.
3. When the applicant is not one who was considered by the DPC and is a rank outsider, he shall be provided all DPC-related information except the ACRs and ACRs grades of those who were considered as part of the proceeding.
AT-25082009-13.doc Page 3 of 4
(d) There may be situations where DPC proceeding includes a statement of marks or grades obtained by those considered as part of that proceeding under various heads such as performance, output, relationship with other employees, etc. including a head relating to ACRs and ACRs grades. All these specific marks under each head may then have been aggregated in the last head.
In all such cases, disclosing the aggregate grades in respect of the employees by excluding the marks obtained under ACRs or ACRs grades may result in disclosure of the ACRs marks simply by subtracting from the aggregate the total of the rest of the marks under other heads. In this case, the very purpose of keeping ACRs and ACRs grades confidential from those to whom it did not pertain, would be defeated.
It is, therefore, directed that in all such cases while severing from this statement ACR and ACRs grades and related marks, the aggregate marks shall also be excluded, except when such disclosure is to be made to the person to whom the ACR grades related.
12. In the light of what has been stated above, since the requester of the information in the present appeal is the one who does not figure as one of those considered in the DPC proceedings, she shall be provided all information relating to those proceedings except the ACRs grades of third-parties, i.e. the other employees / candidates and their aggregate grades.
13. This disclosure may be made to the appellant within two weeks of the receipt of this order.
14. Appeal disposed of with these directions.
15. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI ) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AT-25082009-13.doc Page 4 of 4