Central Information Commission
Mrt Alaguvadivel vs Department Of Atomic Energy on 11 January, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F.No.CIC/RM/A/2014/000913-YA
Date of Hearing : 11.01.2016
Date of Decision : 11.01.2016
Complainant/Appellant : Mr. T Alaguvadivel
Anupuram
Respondent : Mr S.Velmorugan ,CPIO
Mr Soundrayaj,APIO Department of Atomic Energy Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad Relevant facts emerging from complaint/appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18.09.2013 CPIO replied on : 24.10.2013 First Appeal filed on : 29.10.2013
First Appellate Authority (FAA) order on : 26.11.2013 Complaint/ Second Appeal received on : 17.02.2014 Information Sought:
The appellant sought information relating to his ACR/APAR (Annual Confidential Report/Annual Performance Assessment Report) sheets including grading assessment sheet during the period 2007 to 2013.
Relevant facts emerging from hearing:
Appellant is absent while respondents are present and heard through video conferencing. Appellant filed an RTI application on 18.09.2013 seeking the above information. CPIO vide letter dated 24.10.2013 replied to the appellant. The FAA in his order observed as under:
"Consequent to the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment on writing Confidential Report, Department of Personnel and Training has issued directives regarding communication of entries in the ACRs to the individuals. Accordingly, the Department of Atomic Energy has formulated the guidelines for implementation of Annual Performance Assessment Report (APAR) from the reporting period 2010-11. In view of the special consideration of the work profile of scientific and technical personnel in DAE which includes elements that would in generally fall in categories such as strategic, new developments with intellectual property right related considerations etc., it has been decided that the scientific/ technical content of the CR/APAR will remain confidential. The final grading is what matters and only the inputs that are considered for making the final grading are relevant for communication to the employee as a feed back for motivation/improvement. Therefore, in DAE, it is felt that it is neither necessary nor desirable to convey the entire contents of the assessment report to the employee concerned and only the overall grading and relevant attributes will be communicated to the officer reported upon. CIC has also held in a similar case that photocopies of annual confidential reports can be provided after severing those entries/ portions from these reports which relate to the strategic and confidential activities being undertaken by the employee concerned within the facility.
With regard to certification/authentication by PIO, it may please be noted that the CR/APAR is the authenticated document by itself and therefore it is felt that there is no need for further authentication by PIO".
The Respondents stated that information as admissible under the RTI Act, 2005 has already been provided to the appellant. He stated that information relating to strategic part was redacted as the same is exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005. He further relied upon Commission's decision in the matter of Shri V P Varghese vs CPIO, Department of Atomic Energy, in file no. CIC/SM/A/2010/901430, which reads as under:-
"The Respondent submitted that the facility in which the Appellant had been working was strategic in nature and that the annual confidential report of an employee like the Appellant would include a lot of technical details about the work performed by that employee. He further submitted that if the copies of the annual confidential reports would be disclosed, a lot of details about the strategic nature of the work undertaken by the facility would be revealed which will not be in the national interest.
While agreeing with the above contention, we think that there would still be a lot of comments and assessments in the annual confidential report of an employee other than the technical details of what exact work he has been performing within the facility and such portions of the report could be disclosed without adversely affecting the security and strategic concerns."
Decision:
After hearing respondents and on perusal of record, the Commission observes that the information furnished by the respondent after redacting the portions which involves strategic information is in conformity with the RTI Act, 2005 and thus qualifies for exemption u/s 8(1)
(a) of the Act. The Commission also relies on the decision of CIC which is cited above. Hence, no further action is required in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(B.D. Harit) Deputy Secretary & Deputy Registrar Copy to:-
Central Public Information Officer under RTI First Appellate Authority under RTI Deputy General Manager (KNRPC), Facility Director & FAA, Department of Atomic Energy, Department of Atomic Energy, BARC Facilities, Kalpakkam, BARC Facilities, Kalpakkam, District - Kanchipuram (T.N.). District - Kanchipuram (T.N.). Shri T. Alaguvadivel 101, Purnima, ATS (East), Anupuram District - Kanchipuram-603127 (T.N.).