Central Information Commission
Rakesh Kumar vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 1 August, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/LICOI/C/2017/132662-BJ
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Rohil
.... िशकायतकता
/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & Manager (CRM),
LIC of India
Customer Relationship Management Department,
Divisional Office, "Jeevan Prakash", Jaipur Road,
Bikaner - 334003
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 31.07.2018
Date of Decision : 01.08.2018
Date of filing of RTI application 04.01.2017
CPIO's response 14.01.2017
Date of filing the First appeal 18.01.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 03.02.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission 16.05.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding the certified copy of his own Annual Confidential Report for the period 2016 along with the copy of the Inward Register confirmed by the Divisional Office from 28.03.2016 to 15.05.2016 etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 14.01.2017 provided a point wise reply to the Complainant wherein for point 02, the information sought was denied u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the CPIOs response, the Complainant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 03.02.2017 concurred to the CPIO response.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Complainant: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Rohil through VC;
Respondent: Mr. Sunil Kumar Sareen, Manager, CRM/CPIO through VC;Page 1 of 3
The Complainant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that although replies were given by CPIO / FAA but these were deflected from the main issues raised by him. It was articulated that in a subsequent RTI filed by him, he was given a copy of his own ACR for the period sought by him. The Respondent explained that as per laid down guidelines, the employees of the Corporation were supposed to indicate their Service Record Number (SR) in each correspondence of this nature and due to the absence of it, the ACR details could not be furnished. However, on a query from the Commission as to why the CPIO did not seek specific details rather than furnishing ambiguous and evasive reply, no satisfactory reply was offered. With regard to his query number 02, it was stated that inward register contained confidential details of policy holders and therefore, could not be disclosed.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 13.07.2018 wherein while reiterating the RTI application, reply of the CPIO/FAA dated 14.01.2017/03.02.2017, respectively, it was prayed to the Commission to dismiss the present Appeal filed by the Complainant based on the above facts.
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.
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 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."
DECISION Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
Page 2 of 3The Commission however, instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The Complaint 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: 01.08.2018
Page 3 of 3