Central Information Commission
R K Bothra vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Cca) , ... on 3 December, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/CCITJ/A/2017/163324-BJ
Mr. R K Bothra
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
ITO (HQ/VIG),
Office of the Pr. CIT-1,
Aayakar Bhawan, Paota 'C'Road,
Jodhpur-342010
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 30.11.2018
Date of Decision : 03.12.2018
Date of RTI application 31.07.2017
CPIO's response 07.08.2017
Date of the First Appeal 16.08.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 04.09.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 08.09.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought inspection and permission to take extracts of the file relating to memorandum dated 04.01.2017 issued in his case.
The CPIO and ITO (HQ/ Vig), O/o the Pr. CIT-I, Jodhpur, vide its letter dated 07.08.2017 transferred the application u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005 to DCIT (HQ) O/o CCIT, Jodhpur. Dissatisfied by the reply, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 04.09.2017 upheld the decision of CPIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:Page 1 of 3
Appellant: Mr. R K Bothra (ITO) through VC Respondent: Mr. Vishnu Dutt Purohit, ITO (HQ) through VC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that the inspection of his own records as sought by him had not been allowed so far. The Respondent informed the Commission that the subject matter related to CCIT, Jodhpur and therefore the RTI application was transferred to that office for further action. In nutshell the records sought by the Appellant relating to memorandum dated 04.01.2017 had not been shown / inspected by him.
In the context of disclosure of own information of the information seeker, the Commission referred to the observations made by the Apex Court in the matter of Dev Dutt vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 May, 2008, Civil Appeal No. 7631 OF 2002, wherein it was held as under "19. In our opinion, every entry in the A.C.R. of a public servant must be communicated to him within a reasonable period, whether it is a poor, fair, average, good or very good entry. This is because non-communication of such an entry may adversely affect the employee in two ways : (1) Had the entry been communicated to him he would know about the assessment of his work and conduct by his superiors, which would enable him to improve his work in future (2) He would have an opportunity of making a representation against the entry if he feels it is unjustified, and pray for its upgradation.
Hence non-communication of an entry is arbitrary, and it has been held by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (supra) that arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
20. Thus it is not only when there is a bench mark but in all cases that an entry (whether it is poor, fair, average, good or very good) must be communicated to a public servant, otherwise there is violation of the principle of fairness, which is the soul of natural justice. Even an outstanding entry should be communicated since that would boost the morale of the employee and make him work harder."
In the judgement of the Ld. Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in R.K. Jain v. Union of India, W.P. 6756 of 2010 dated 08.12.2011 which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide its aforementioned decision it was held as under:
"10. Therefore, except in cases involving overriding public interest, the ACR record of an officer cannot be disclosed to any person other than the officer himself/herself."
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Treesha Irish vs. CPIO and Ors., WP (C) No. 6352 of 2006 dated 30.08.2010 while deciding that a candidate was entitled to his own answer sheet had held as under:
21...................... The valued answer paper, if at all, can be a personal information relating to the candidate who has written the same. When the candidate applies for copy of the same, it cannot be denied to the candidate on the ground that it is personal information, insofar as, if that information would compromise anybody, it is the candidate himself/herself."
Page 2 of 3DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the CCIT, Jodhpur to depute a responsible officer to reply to his RTI application dated 31.07.2017 appropriately within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 03.12.2018
Copy to:-
1. The CCIT, Jodhpur, Aaykar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur-342010 Page 3 of 3