Central Information Commission
Shri Rajnish Kumar Rai vs Ministry Of Home Affairs (Mha) on 2 March, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01037 dated 4.11.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Rajnish Kumar Rai
Respondent - Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA)
Facts:
Shri Rajnish Kumar Rai of Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat applied to the CPIO, MHA on 13.2.2007, seeking the following information:
"1. What are the criteria / standing instructions / rules / regulations / guidelines for selection of IPS Officers from Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) to Selection Grade (SAG) (Supply copies of all the relevant documents.)
2. What are the criteria / standing instructions /regulations / guidelines for empanelment of IPS Officers at the Centre from the rank of Superintendent of Police to Dy. Inspector General of Police ? (Supply copies of all the relevant documents.)
3. When was the meeting for empanelment of IPS Officers of 1992 batch to the rank of DIG of Police held? Who were the members of the DPC / Screening Committee?
4. What was the bench mark set by the DPC / Screening Committee for the empanelment of IPS Officers of 1992 batch to the rank of DIG of Police ?
5. ACRs of how many years were considered for the said empanelment ?
6. What were the criteria adopted by the DPC / Screening Committee for deciding whether the officer was "fit' or 'unfit' for empanelment i.e. how many nos. of "outstanding", 'very good' and 'good' ACRs were needed to decide the 'fitness' of the officer for empanelment?
7. Supply the noting of the file wherein '3', '4', '5' and '6' were recorded.1
8. Supply the copy of the comments of each member of the DPC / screening Committee given against each officer of 1992 batch while considering them for empanelment.
9. Also supply the minutes of the said meeting.
10. What is the overall year wise grading of ACR of Rajnish Kumar Rai ( GJ-1992) for the period from 1.4.1995 to 31.3.2006?"
To this he received a response on 26.4.2007 from CPIO Ms. Inderjeet Kaur, seeking to answer all questions pointwise as follows:
S. Information asked Reply
No.
1. What are the criteria/ Guidelines for selection of IPS
standing instructions/ rules/ officers from Junior Administrative regulations/ guidelines for Grade (JAG) to Selection Grade selection of IPS Officers (SAG) are enclosed.
from Junior Administrative
Grade (JAG) to Selection
Grade (SAG) (Supply
copies of all the relevant
documents.)
2. What are the criteria / An IPS officer with minimum
standing instructions number of 14 years of service is
/regulations / guidelines for eligible for consideration for
empanelment of IPS empanelment to hold DIG and
Officers at the Centre from equivalent level posts under the
the rank of Superintendent Central Government. Suitability of
of Police to Dy. Inspector IPS officers from empanelment at
General of Police ? (Supply the level of DIG at the Centre is
copies of all the relevant assessed by Central Police
documents.) Establishment Board.
3. When was the meeting for The CPEB meeting was held on
empanelment of IPS 9.10.2006. The Members are SS Officers of 1992 batch to the (IS), Director (CBI), DG BSF and rank of DIG of Police held? DG CRPF.
Who were the members of the DPC / Screening Committee?
4. What was the bench mark For empanelment as DIG at the set by the DPC / Screening Centre, an IPS officer should have Committee for the been assessed as 'very good' at empanelment of IPS least by three Members and he 2 Officers of 1992 batch to the should not have been assessed rank of DIG of Police ? 'Adverse/ Average' by any Member.
5. ACRs of how many years The 'Cut off year" of ACRs taken in were considered for the said to consideration for 1992 batch was empanelment ? 2004-2005.
6. What were the criteria The file is confidential. As per adopted by the DPC / provision of Section 8 (1) (e) as well Screening Committee for as Section 11 (i) of RTI Act, the file deciding whether the officer noting can't be provided. was "fit' or 'unfit' for empanelment i.e. how many nos. of "outstanding", 'very good' and 'good' ACRs were needed to decide the 'fitness' of the officer for empanelment?
7. Supply the noting of the file As above.
wherein '3', '4', '5' and '6' were recorded.
8. Supply the copy of the As above.
comments of each member of the DPC / screening Committee given against each officer of 1992 batch while considering them for empanelment.
9. Also supply the minutes of As above.
the said meeting.
10. What is the overall year As above.
wise grading of ACR of Rajnish Kumar Rai ( GJ-
1992) for the period from 1.4.1995 to 31.3.2006?
11. When an officer is on long Copies of DOP&T letter No. terms training/ study leave, 11059/18/88-AIS (III) dated his/ her ACR for the 18.12.89, 5.1.89 is enclosed in this corresponding period is not regard.
reported upon. How are the
said ACRs being treated in
terms of grading for
consideration of
empanelment/ promotion.
12. Which ACRs of Rajnish ACR up to 31.3.2004 were available
3
Kumar Rai IPS (GJ-1992) and taken into consideration.
were available with the
MHA when the meeting
forth empanelment of IPS
officers of 1992 batch for
the rank of DIG of Police
took place?
13. Why was Rajnish Kumar Shri Rajnish Kumar Rai, IPS
Rai IPS (GJ-1992) not (GJ/92) was not found fit for
empanelled? Supply the empanelment.
comments of each member
of the DPC/ Screening
Committee in the case of
said officer.
14. It is reported that the Home The officer himself wrote his cadre
Department, Government of and batch as Orissa 1992 in his
Gujarat did not receive the self-appraisal. CBI also mentioned
ACR of Rajnish Kumar Rai his cadre and batch as OR:92: MHA
IPS (GJ-1992) for the period had sent the ACR for the period of
20.5.02 to 15.1.03 till 16th 20.5.02 to 15.1.2003 to the Govt of
December, 2006 because Orissa vide MHA letter No.
the MHA sent the said ACR 17048/12/2003 IPS -II dated
only on 15.12.2005. 27.6.03 (copy enclosed) As earlier
i)Please intimate his cadre was Orissa. Later the whether the MHA had cadre was changed to Gujarat.
sent the ACR (For the
period 20.5.02 to
15.1.03) of Rajnish As above.
Kumar Rai IPS (GJ-
1992) before 15th
December, 2006?
ii)If the response to 14 (i) As above.
is affirmative, when did
the MHA send the said
ACR to the Home
Department, Govt. of
Gujarat?
Supply the copy of As above.
forwarding letter of the said
ACR and the extract of the
dispatch register for the
relevant forwarding letter.
Supply the proof of delivery As above.
of the said ACR to the
4
Home Department Govt. of
Gujarat.
Also supply the copy of the As above.
acknowledgement of the
receipt of the said ACR by
the Home Department,
Government of Gujarat.
iii) If the response to 14 (i) is As above.
negative, please intimate
why the MHA did not sent
said ACR in time.
Also supply the copies of As above.
the correspondences that
the Home Dep't Govt of
Gujarat may have made
with the MHA for send the
ACR to it.
What action did the MHA Home Dep't Govt of Gujarat had not take on the said requests, if made any correspondence in this any, of the Home Dep't regard.
Govt of Gujarat to send the ACR?
Supply the copy of the N/A. replies of the MHA to the Home Dep't Govt of Gujarat in connection with the above correspondence.
Not satisfied, however, Shri Rai moved his first appeal on 17.5.07 before the First Appellate Authority and, on not receiving a reply he has moved his second appeal before us. The first appeal specifically shows dissatisfaction to answer received against questions 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 & 14(i). Because he has not received a response, his prayer before us in his second appeal is as below:
"Deemed refusal by the Appellate Authority. The Grounds for the prayer / relief is the same that the applicant made to the Appellate Authority to direct the CPIO to provide the information (Copy enclosed as Appendix 4)."5
The appeal was heard through videoconference on 2.3.2009. The following are present:
Appellant at NIC Studio, Gandhi Nagar Shri Rajnish Kumar Rai Respondents at CIC Studio, New Delhi.
Shri N. K. Job, Under Secretary, MHA Shri P.R. Dhall, S.I., MHA Shri N. K. Job, Under Secretary submitted that orders on first Appeal have indeed been passed on 31.7.08 and a copy mailed to appellant. This was confirmed by appellant Shri R. K. Rai who submitted that his appeal had been rejected. His prayer before us is therefore identical to that moved in his first appeal. Consequently, we have examined the questions asked against the answers provided with which appellant was dissatisfied.
With regard to Q. 2 appellant submitted that he has sought supply of all relevant documents with regard to Questions. Although the question has been sought to be answered, no documents have been supplied. On Q. 4 appellant has specifically asked for the bench-mark set by the DPC / Screening Committee. That bench-mark has we find been specifically mentioned in the response. It appears, however, that the dissatisfaction of the appellant is with regard to the answer to question No.6.
With regard to Q. 5 appellant submitted that his question was how many years were considered for the empanelment whereas the reply only talks of the cut off year, but it does not give information on how many years were considered. Shri Job clarified in the hearing that this was five years. This answers the question of appellant.
Q. 6 to 10 - all these questions pertains to matters regarding disclosure of ACRs. The public authority had claimed exemption u/s 8(1)(e) of the Act in all these answers.6
Regarding Q.11 appellant Shri Rai confirmed that he had received information from the DoPT, as claimed in their response. However, he has not received any copy of the letter dated 11095/3/86-AIS-III dated 5.1.87 of the DoPT, also referred to in the correspondence provided. Shri N. K. Job submitted that this letter pertains to the DOPT. However, he is ready to obtain a copy and provide it to appellant Shri Rai.
On Q. 13 appellant has specifically asked for comments of each member of DPC / Screening Committee. The MHA, however, has simply informed him that he was not found fit and sought to close the case there. Shri N. K. Job under Secretary, however, submitted that he was carrying Minutes of the Meeting with him and if so directed, this could be supplied to appellant Shri Rai.
On Q. 14(i) & (iii) the dispute is as to whether the documents regarding ACRs of Shri Rai should have been sent to Gujarat or Orissa. It is admitted by respondents that they sent it to Orissa which appellant Shri Rai states was a mistake despite the Ministry having been informed and the govt. of Gujarat having specifically asked for them through letters which MHA claims not to have received.
DECISION NOTICE In Civil Appeal No. 7631 of 2002,Shri Dev Dutt vs. Union of India & Ors. the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on May 12, 2008 in the judgment of RT Hon'ble Markandey Katju J and H. K. Sema J has held as follows:
9.In our opinion every entry must be communicated to the employee concerned, so that he may have an opportunity of making a representation against it if he is aggrieved.
10. In the present case the bench mark (i.e. the essential requirement) laid down by the authorities for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer was that the candidate should have 'very good' entry for the last five years. Thus in this situation the 'good' entry in fact is an adverse entry because it eliminates the candidate from being considered for 7 promotion. Thus, nomenclature is not relevant, it is the effect which the entry is having which determines whether it is an adverse entry or not. It is thus the rigours of the entry which is important, not the phraseology.
The grant of a `good' entry is of no satisfaction to the incumbent if it in fact makes him ineligible for promotion or has an adverse effect on his chances.
11. Hence, in our opinion, the 'good' entry should have been communicated to the appellant so as to enable him to make a representation praying that the said entry for the year 1993-94 should be upgraded from 'good' to 'very good'. Of course, after considering such a representation it was open to the authority concerned to reject the representation and confirm the 'good' entry (though of course in a fair manner), but at least an opportunity of making such a representation should have been given to the appellant, and that would only have been possible had the appellant been communicated the 'good' entry, which was not done in this case. Hence, we are of the opinion that the non- communication of the 'good' entry was arbitrary and hence illegal, and the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent are distinguishable.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that under the Office Memorandum 21011/4/87 [Estt.'A'] issued by the Ministry of Personnel/Public Grievance and Pensions dated 10/11.09.1987, only an adverse entry is to be communicated to the concerned employee. It is well settled that no rule or government instruction can violate Article 14 or any other provision of the Constitution, as the Constitution is the highest law of the land. The aforesaid Office Memorandum, if it is interpreted to mean that only adverse entries are to be communicated to the concerned employee and not other entries, would in our opinion become arbitrary and hence illegal being violative of Article 14. All similar Rules/Government Orders/Office Memoranda, in respect of all services under the State, whether civil, judicial, police, or other service (except the military), will hence also be illegal and are therefore liable to be ignored.
13. It has been held in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India & Anr. AIR 1978 SC 597 that arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution. In our opinion, the non-communication of an entry in the A.C.R. of a public servant is arbitrary because it deprives the concerned employee from making a representation against it and praying for its up-gradation. In our opinion, every entry in the Annual Confidential Report of every employee under the State, whether he is in civil, judicial, police or other service (except the military) must be communicated to him, so as to enable him to make a representation against it, because non-communication deprives the employee of the opportunity of making a representation against it which may affect his chances of being promoted (or get some 8 other benefits). Moreover, the object of writing the confidential report and making entries in them is to give an opportunity to a public servant to improve his performance, vide State of U.P. vs. Yamuna Shankar Misra 1997 (4) SCC. Hence such non-communication is, in our opinion, arbitrary and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
14. In our opinion, every entry (and not merely a poor or adverse entry) relating to an employee under the State or an instrumentality of the State, whether in civil, judicial, police or other service (except the military) must be communicated to him, within a reasonable period, and it makes no difference whether there is a bench mark or not. 1 Even if there is no bench mark, non communication of an entry may adversely affect the employee's chances of promotion (or getting some other benefit), because when comparative merit is being considered for promotion (or some other benefit) a person having a `good' or `average' or `fair' entry certainly has less chances of being selected than a person having a `very good' or `outstanding' entry.
15. In most services there is a gradation of entries, which is usually as follows:
(i) Outstanding
(ii) Very Good
(iii) Good
(iv) Average
(v) Fair
(vi) Poor A person getting any of the entries at items (ii) to (vi) should be communicated the entry so that he has an opportunity of making a representation praying for its upgradation, and such a representation must be decided fairly and within a reasonable period by the concerned authority.
16. If we hold that only `poor' entry is to be communicated, the consequences may be that persons getting `fair', `average', `good' or `very good' entries will not be able to represent for its upgradation, and this may subsequently adversely affect their chances of promotion (or get some other benefit).
17. In our opinion if the Office Memorandum dated 10/11.09.1987, is interpreted to mean that only adverse entries (i.e. `poor' entry) need to be communicated and not `fair', 'average' or 'good' entries, it would become arbitrary (and hence illegal) since it may adversely affect the incumbent's chances of promotion, or get some other benefit.
1Emphasis ours 9
18. For example, if the bench mark is that an incumbent must have `very good' entries in the last five years, then if he has `very good' (or even `outstanding') entries for four years, a `good' entry for only one year may yet make him ineligible for promotion. This `good' entry may be due to the personal pique of his superior, or because the superior asked him to do something wrong which the incumbent refused, or because the incumbent refused to do sycophancy of his superior, or because of caste or communal prejudice, or for some other extraneous consideration.
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 2 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.
21. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the decision of this Court in U. P. Jal Nigam vs. Prabhat Chandra Jain AIR 1996 SC 1661. We have perused the said decision, which is cryptic and does not go into details. Moreover it has not noticed the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (supra) which has held that all State action must be non-arbitrary, otherwise Article 14 of the Constitution will be violated. In our opinion the decision in U.P. Jal Nigam (supra) cannot be said to have laid down any legal principle that entries need not be communicated. As observed in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. N.R. Vairamani AIR 2004 SC 4778 (vide Para 9):
"Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's Theorems nor as provisions of the statute, and that too, taken out of their context".
22. In U.P. Jal Nigam's case (supra) there is only a stray observation "if the graded entry is of going a step down, like falling from 'very good' to 2 Emphasis added 10 'good' that may not ordinarily be an adverse entry since both are a positive "grading". There is no discussion about the question whether such 'good' grading can also have serious adverse consequences as it may virtually eliminate the chances of promotion of the incumbent if there is a benchmark requiring 'very good' entry. And even when there is no benchmark, such downgrading can have serious adverse effect on an incumbent's chances of promotion where comparative merit of several candidates is considered.
23. Learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon the decision of this Court in Union of India & Anr. vs. S. K. Goel & Ors. AIR 2007 SC 1199 and on the strength of the same submitted that only an adverse entry need be communicated to the incumbent. The aforesaid decision is a 2- Judge Bench decision and hence cannot prevail over the 7-Judge Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (supra) in which it has been held that arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution. Since the aforesaid decision in Union of India vs. S.K. Goel (supra) has not considered the aforesaid Constitution Bench decision in Maneka Gandhi's case (supra), it cannot be said to have laid down the correct law. Moreover, this decision also cannot be treated as a Euclid's formula since there is no detailed discussion in it about the adverse consequences of non-communication of the entry, and the consequential denial of making a representation against it.
24. It may be mentioned that communication of entries and giving opportunity to represent against them is particularly important on higher posts which are in a pyramidical structure where often the principle of elimination is followed in selection for promotion, and even a single entry can destroy the career of an officer which has otherwise been outstanding throughout. This often results in grave injustice and heart- burning, and may shatter the morale of many good officers who are superseded due to this arbitrariness, while officers of inferior merit may be promoted.
25. In the present case, the action of the respondents in not communicating the 'good' entry for the year 1993-94 to the appellant is in our opinion arbitrary and violative of natural justice, because in substance the `good' entry operates as an adverse entry (for the reason given above).
26. What is natural justice? The rules of natural justice are not codified nor are they unvarying in all situations, rather they are flexible. They may, however, be summarized in one word : fairness. In other words, what they require is fairness by the authority concerned. Of course, what is fair would depend on the situation and the context.
1127. Lord Esher M.R. in Voinet vs. Barrett (1885) 55 L.J. QB 39, 39 observed: "Natural justice is the natural sense of what is right and wrong."
28. In our opinion, our natural sense of what is right and wrong tells us that it was wrong on the part of the respondent in not communicating the 'good' entry to the appellant since he was thereby deprived of the right to make a representation against it, which if allowed would have entitled him to be considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. One may not have the right to promotion, but one has the right to be considered for promotion, and this right of the appellant was violated in the present case.
29. A large number of decisions of this Court have discussed the principles of natural justice and it is not necessary for us to go into all of them here. However, we may consider a few.
30. Thus, in A. K. Kraipak & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1970 SC 150, a Constitution Bench of this Court held :
"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 judex 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".
(emphasis supplied)
31. The aforesaid decision was followed by this Court in K. I. Shephard & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1988 SC 686 (vide pares 12-15). It was held in this decision that even administrative acts have to be in accordance with natural justice if they have civil consequences. It was also held that natural justice has various facets and acting fairly is one of them.
32. In Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. Girja Shankar Pant AIR 2001 SC 24, this Court held (vide Para 2):
"The doctrine (natural justice) is now termed as a synonym of fairness in the concept of justice and stands as the most accepted methodology of a governmental action".
( 12
33. In the same decision it was also held following the decision of Tucker, LJ in Russell vs. Duke of Norfolk (1949) 1 All ER 109:
"The requirement of natural justice must depend on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the enquiry, the rules under which the tribunal is acting, the subject- matter that is being dealt with, and so forth".
34. In Union of India etc. vs. Tulsiram Patel etc. AIR 1985 SC 1416 (vide Para 97) a Constitution Bench of this Court referred to with approval the following observations of Ormond, L.J. in Norwest Holst Ltd. vs. Secretary of State for Trade (1978) 1, Ch. 201 :
"The House of Lords and this court have repeatedly emphasized that the ordinary principles of natural justice must be kept flexible and must be adapted to the circumstances prevailing in any particular case".
Thus, it is well settled that the rules of natural justice are flexible. The question to be asked in every case to determine whether the rules of natural justice have been violated is: have the authorities acted fairly?
35. In Swadesh Cotton Mills etc. vs. Union of India etc. AIR 1981 SC 818, this Court following the decision in Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. vs. The Chief Election Commissioner & Ors. AIR 1978 SC 851 held that the soul of the rule (natural justice) is fair play in action.
36. In our opinion, fair play required that the respondent should have communicated the 'good' entry of 1993-94 to the appellant so that he could have an opportunity of making a representation praying for upgrading the same so that he could be eligible for promotion. Non- communication of the said entry, in our opinion, was hence unfair on the part of the respondent and hence violative of natural justice.
37. Originally there were said to be only two principles of natural justice : (1) the rule against bias and (2) the right to be heard (audialteram partem). However, subsequently, as noted in A.K. Kraipak's case (supra) and K.L. Shephard's case (supra), some more rules came to be added to the rules of natural justice, e.g. the requirement to give reasons vide S.N. Mukherji vs. Union of India AIR 1990 SC 1984. In Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (supra) (vide paragraphs 56 to 61) it was held that natural justice is part of Article 14 of the Constitution.
38. Thus natural justice has an expanding content and is not stagnant. It is therefore open to the Court to develop new principles of natural justice in appropriate cases.
1339. In the present case, we 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 Annual Confidential Report 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. This in our opinion is the correct legal position even though there may be no Rule/G.O. requiring communication of the entry, or even if there is a Rule/G.O. prohibiting it, because the principle of non-arbitrariness in State action as envisaged by Article 14 of the Constitution in our opinion requires such communication. Article 14 will override all rules or government orders.
40. We further hold that when the entry is communicated to him the public servant should have a right to make a representation against the entry to the concerned authority, and the concerned authority must decide the representation in a fair manner and within a reasonable period. We also hold that the representation must be decided by an authority higher than the one who gave the entry, otherwise the likelihood is that the representation will be summarily rejected without adequate consideration as it would be an appeal from Caesar to Caesar. All this would be conducive to fairness and transparency in public administration, and would result in fairness to public servants. The State must be a model employer, and must act fairly towards its employees. Only then would good governance be possible.
41. We, however, make it clear that the above directions will not apply to military officers because the position for them is different as clarified by this Court in Union of India vs. Major Bahadur Singh 2006 (1) SCC
368. But they will apply to employees of statutory authorities, public sector corporations and other instrumentalities of the State (in addition to Government servants).
42. In Canara Bank vs. V. K. Awasthy 2005 (6) SCC 321, this Court held that the concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. As observed in para 8 of the said judgment:
"Natural justice is another name for common-sense justice. Rules of natural justice are not codified canons. But they are principles ingrained into the conscience of man. Natural justice is the administration of justice in a common-sense liberal way. Justice is based substantially on natural ideals and human values".
43. In para 12 of the said judgment it was observed:
"What is meant by the term "principles of natural justice" is not easy to determine. Lord Summer (then Hamilton, L.J.) 14 in R. v. Local Govt. Board (1914) 1 KB 160:83 LJKB 86 described the phrase as sadly lacking in precision. In General Council of Medical Education & Registration of U.K. v. Spackman (1943) AC 627: (1943) 2 All ER 337, Lord Wright observed that it was not desirable to attempt "to force it into any Procrustean bed".
44. In State of Maharashtra vs. Public Concern for Governance Trust & Ors. 2007 (3) SCC 587, it was observed (vide para 39):
"In our opinion, when an authority takes a decision which may have civil consequences and affects the rights of a person, the principles of natural justice would at once come into play".
45. In our opinion, non-communication of entries in the Annual Confidential Report of a public servant, whether he is in civil, judicial, police or any other service (other than the military), certainly has civil consequences because it may affect his chances for promotion or get other benefits (as already discussed above). Hence, such non- communication would be arbitrary, and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
From the above, it is quite clear that the plea taken in response to Q. 6, 7, 8 9 & 10 is invalid. There has also been confirmation by the Full Bench of this Commission through our Decision Notice dated 19.2.2009 Shri P.K Sareen vs. C.P.W.D. Appeal No. CIC/WB/A//2007/00422. Consequently the orders of Public Authority with regard to these questions are set aside. The matter is remanded to Shri V. N. Gaur, IAS, First Appellate Authority & Jt. Secretary (Police), Ministry of Home Affairs who will re-examine these questions in light of the Supreme Court judgment and provide a response to Shri R. K. Rai within fifteen working days from the date of receipt of this Decision Notice.
In addition to the above, the following information, not yet provided, will also be provided to the appellant within ten working days of the date of receipt of this Decision Notice:
1. Copies of documents relevant to the criteria / standing orders / rules / regulations / guidelines for empanelment of IPS Officers.
2. Copy of DOPT letter No. 11095/3/86-AIS (III) dated 5.1.87.15
Appellant Shri Rai has already been informed in answer to question 5 that the ACRs for five years were considered for the empanelment. A copy of the Minutes of the 190th Meeting of the Central Police Establishment Board held on 9.10.2006 in the Offices of Union Home Secretary is also attached with this Decision Notice. The appeal is thus allowed. There will be no cost.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 2.3.2009 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.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 2.3.2009 Encl: MINUTES OF THE MEETING 16