Central Information Commission
Dr.Ashok Kumar vs Indian Council Of Forestry Research & ... on 11 February, 2009
Central Information Commission
SA/UG/F2571 N61A
Dated February 11, 2009
Name of the Appellant : Dr.Ashok Kumar
Name of the Public Authority : Indian Council of Forestry Research
& Education
Background
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dt.10.9.08 with the PIO, ICFRE. He stated that he had served as a Scientist in Northeastern part from 31.3.1998 to 10.9.2004. During the period he was assessed from Scientist B to C (1.1.2002) and failed in the interview and promoted next year only from 1.1.2003. He further stated that there are special concessions when a person is posted in NE region and appropriate weightage is to be given in promotions and other issues. In this context, Appellant sought the following information:
i) Copies of ACR and marks allotted on the basis of assessment made by Reporting Officer, Reviewing Officer and Accepting Authority from Mar.1998 to Sept.2004 and year wise marks awarded as weightage
ii) To inform whether his failure in interview (2002) was with or without adding the weightage marks. Also to provide expert wise marks obtained in the interview and the marks awarded as weightage.
iii) Supply copies of ACR for 2006-07 and 2007-08 and component wise details of marks in APAR.
iv) To provide guidelines adopted for filling APAR by the Scientist reported upon and the Reporting Officer, Reviewing Officer and Accepting Authorities.
v) It was told verbally not to mention research progress reports of ICFRE funded projects as such reports will not be given any marks in APAR.
Was it an instruction from the ICFRE or the Individual Institutes had adopted their own criterion.
The PIO replied on 17.9.08 stating that according to CIC decisions, ACR of officers and employees need not be disclosed because it does not contribute to any public interest. In view of the said decision, the marks obtained on the basis of ACRs cannot be disclosed. He also added that Scientists are screened in accordance with the provisions contained in ICFRE Group A (Scientific Post) Rules. According to CIC decision expertwise marks cannot be supplied. The Appellant filed an appeal dt.30.9.08 with the Appellate Authority. On not receiving any reply, the Appellant filed a second appeal dt.19.11.08 before CIC.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing on February 11, 2009.
3. Mr. R.S. Sharma, Estt. & Accounts Officer on behalf of PIO and Mr. S. Senthil Kumar, DCF on behalf of Appellate Authority represented the Public Authority.
4. The Appellant Dr. Ashok Kumar was present in person during the hearing.
Decision
5. It was observed that the CPIO in his reply contended that Scientists are screened in accordance with the provisions contained in ICFRE Group A (Scientific Post) Rules and the said Rules are already displayed on the website of ICFRE. Furthermore, the CPIO had denied the information pertaining to the ACRs as also copies of the ACRs invoking the CIC judgment dated 13th July 2006 being No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00069 on this issue. However, the Appellant's contention in his first appeal was that the information provided was incomplete and majority of the points had not been covered in the reply of the PIO. The marks awarded as weightage had not been mentioned as also the information on whether his failure in interview (2002) was with or without adding the weightage marks was nowhere dealt with by the CPIO in his reply.
6. The Appellant submitted that the ICFRE is presently using a new reporting format called APAR (Annual performance Appraisal Report) instead of ACR. His contention is that while the process of writing the confidential report is similar to ACR, it is not clear from the Report whose marks and in what proportion are taken into account for promotion. He further stated that APAR is now presently under modification and expressed his hope that this particular aspect would be looked into while finalizing the APAR format.
7. The Commission observed that in the present case, the Appellant has also placed reliance on the judgments of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana & also on the Apex Court decision. In this connection it would be pertinent to refer to the Full Bench Decision passed vide order dated 19.02.2009 in Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00422 concerning disclosure of ACRs referring to the Supreme Court decision addressing the issue of disclosure of ACRs. The CIC decision reads as under:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Dev Dutt's case supra has clearly laid down that they are developing the principles of natural justice by holding that fairness and transparency in public administration requires that all entries (whether poor, fair, average, good or very good) in the ACR of a public servant, whether in civil, judicial, police or any other State service (except the Military) , must be communicated to him within a reasonable period so that he can make a representation for its upgradation. The Hon'ble Court has further declared that these directions will not apply to Military Officers but they will apply to employees of statutory authorities, public sector corporations and other instrumentalities of the State (in addition to Government servants) The aforesaid Supreme Court decision relates to communication of entries made in the ACRs, more particularly, the grade assigned to an employee (whether poor, fair, average, good or very good). This still leaves the issue as to whether copies of the ACRs (whether photostat or certified) could be issued to an employee under the Right to Information Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court has stated that the communication of the entries to a public servant must enable him to make a representation against the entry to the concerned authority. Mere communication of an assigned grade will naturally not enable him to exercise his right of making a representation in an effective manner. The Hon'ble Court has further held that "all this would be conducive to fairness and transparency in public administration and would result in fairness to public servants."
The objective of the Right to Information Act is also to bring transparency and accountability in the working of all Public Authorities. The disclosure of ACRs to the concerned employee cannot, therefore, be denied in the light of decision/directives of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in which in developing the principle of natural justice the Hon'ble Court has ruled that "the concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. In the past it was thought that it included just two rules, namely(1) no one shall be a judge in his own cause (Nemo debet csse judexe propria causa) and (2) no decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing (audi alteram partem). Very soon thereafter a third rule was envisaged and that is that quasi- judicial enquiries must be held in good faith, without bias and not arbitrarily or unreasonably. But in the course of years many more subsidiary rules came to be added to the rules of natural justice." This does not, however, imply that it will necessarily be desirable to provide either a photocopy or a certified copy of the ACRs to a public servant.
7. In view of the latest decision of the Full Bench of CIC as mentioned hereinabove and the Supreme Court decision in Dev Dutt vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2008)8 SCC 725] it is decided that the complete information as sought by the Appellant in the instant case, including all the information in the ACRs may be duly communicated to him within 15 days of receipt of this order.
9. The appeal is disposed off on the above terms.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(K.G.Nair) Designated Officer Cc:
1. Dr.Ashok Kumar Scientist-D Divn. Of Genetics & Tree Propagation Forest Research Institute Dehradun 248 195 Uttarakhand
2. The CPIO Indian Council of Forestry Research & Education P.O. New Forest Dehradun 248 006
3. The Appellate Authority Indian Council of Forestry Research & Education P.O. New Forest Dehradun 248 006
4. Officer in charge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC