Central Information Commission
Sanjay Poddar vs Central Railway on 30 October, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CRAIL/A/2024/109732
Sanjay Poddar .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Central Railway General
Manager's office CSMT,
Mumbai - 400001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27.10.2025
Date of Decision : 30.10.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
(Total number of 13 Second Appeals of the Appellant are listed today for
hearing before the Commission)
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04.10.2023
CPIO replied on : 29.11.2023
First appeal filed on : 16.12.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 18.01.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 22.03.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.10.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:Page 1 of 6
"Kindly furnish me the following information as they shall be required to defend my case of compulsory retirement from the railway service vide the referred order, in CAT Mumbai.
1) I applied for commutation of pension which was not provided. Kindly arrange to provide the necessary policy under which my commutation of pension was not sanctioned. Also arrange to provide all the concerned noting's of the file wherein my case för non-sanction or grant of commutation was dealt with.
2) For the purpose of providing the three months' salary along with allowances in lieu of the notice to the employee to be compulsorily retired under Rule No 1802(a) of the IREC-Vol-II [FR 56(j)], a calculation sheet is prepared based on the last salary drawn which than shows the exact amount to be paid to the employee. I may kindly be fetched a copy of such a calculation sheet based on which an amount of Rs 434160/-in lieu of the notice was paid to me. If no such calculation sheet is available which other policy guided the authority to pay me the said amount as the amount paid cannot be arrived at arbitrarily. Copy of the said policy may be provided.
3) A period of 3 years, 4 months, 23 days have been shown to be non-
qualifying service in a total of 23 years, 11 months, 2 days service rendered by me. In this connection kindly provide a copy of the calculation sheet based on which such a figure has been arrived at. Also provide me a complete copy of the policy letter/document specifically indicating the relevant para(s)in it which has/have been applied in my case to determine the non-qualifying service.
4) A copy of the letter/official notification issued by Railway Board showing my confirmation into JAG (Junior Administrative Grade) along with others batch-mates which should include the complete list of all officers promoted along with me.
5) Bench mark criteria followed for promotion. into the JAG and SG for the batch IRSME-94. Kindly provide me copies of all the policy letters adopted by RB for such promotions.
6) Minutes of the proceedings of all the DPC (Departmental Promotion Committee) which considered me unfit or fit for promotion into the SG (Selection Grade).
Page 2 of 67) Minutes of all DPC which considered me unfit for promotion into the SAG (Senior Administrative Grade)
8) Kindly allow inspection of all my ACRs/APARs since the date of joining the railways to enable me collect relevant extracts from them."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 29.11.2023 stating as under:
"8. For inspection of your ACR/APAR you may visit the office of Assistant Secretary (Conf.), GM's office, Central Railway, Mumbai CSMT on any working day during office hours with prior intimation. The inspection will be permitted subject to usual exemptions and remitting necessary fees envisaged under RTI Act."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.12.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 18.01.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through Video-Conference.
Respondent: Shri K K Mishra, DGM & CPIO, Central Railway present through Video-Conference.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 22.03.2024 is not available on record. Respondent confirms non-service.
6. Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
7. The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that he restricts his Second Appeal only on point No. 8 of the RTI application. He submitted that he inspected the relevant records/his APARs only till the period 2008-09. Afterwards, the PIO refused to disclose his own information based on DoPT circular dated 21.09.2007.
Page 3 of 68. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they have afforded inspection of records to the Appellant on point No. 8 of the RTI application wherein records were shown to him till the year 2008-09. They have further informed that request for inspection of APAR prior to the year 2008-2009 cannot be permitted in terms of DoPT's OM No. 10/20/2006-IR dated 21.09.2007, Railway Boards letter No. 2007/SCC/3/14 dated 25.10.2007 & letter No.2009/SCC/3/12 dated 31.07.2009.
Decision:
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the Appellant in his Second Appeal is aggrieved that complete information on point No. 8 of the RTI application has not been provided to him.
10. The Commission observes that the Respondent has misinterpreted the DoPT OM regarding disclosure of one's own APAR.
11. In the context of disclosure of entry in the employee's own ACR, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision of Dev Dutt vs Union of India & Ors on 12 May, 2008, Civil Appeal No. 7631 OF 2002, had 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.Page 4 of 6
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."
12. In judgment 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."
13. In light of the above facts and circumstances and the contesting claims of both the parties, the Commission directs the PIO, to again facilitate an opportunity of inspection to the Appellant of the available and relevant records on point No. 8 of the RTI application on a mutually decided date & time within a period of six weeks. Before giving a date to the Appellant, the Respondent should supply him a list of files connected with the query in the RTI application giving File Nos., Subject of the file, and total number of pages of correspondence in each file. The PIO is further directed to arrange all relevant files/records (as per RTI application) at one place before calling the Appellant for inspection. The intimation of the date and time of the inspection shall be provided to the Appellant by the PIO telephonically and in writing. In the process of facilitating the inspection and providing subsequent copies of the record, the PIO is at liberty to withhold/redact third party information or any other information which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 of the RTI Act read with Section 10 of the RTI Act.
14. Copy of documents that the Appellant desires during the inspection shall be provided by the PIO free of cost.
Page 5 of 615. The above directions shall be complied with by the PIO within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
16. The FAA is directed to ensure compliance with this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA Central Railway General Manager's office CSMT, Mumbai - 400001 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)