Central Information Commission
Mrsunil Kumarjohar vs National Thermal Power Corporation on 14 October, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F.No.CIC/CC/A/2015/901872-YA
F.No.CIC/CC/A/2015/001965-YA
F.No.CIC/CC/A/2015/903442-YA
F.No.CIC/CC/A/2015/901902-YA
F.No.CIC/CC/A/2014/900636-YA
F.No.CIC/CC/A/2014/900442-YA
F.No.CIC/CC/A/2014/900551-YA
F.No.CIC/CC/A/2014/900759-YA
Date of Hearing : 12.10.2015
Date of Decision : 14.10.2015
Complainant/Appellant : Shri S.K.Johar,
Shri G.S. Sodhi
Delhi
Respondent : Shri P.K. Yadav, CPIO
Ms. M. Mathew, AGM Shri Uttam Lal, AGM (HR) National Thermal Power Corp. Ltd. (NTPC) Delhi Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad Both the parties are present and heard. The appellant vide RTI applications given below has raised multiple queries relating to service matters. Details of all these are reproduced below in a tabulated form:
Appeal no. RTI Date PIO's reply First appeal FAA's order
901872 20.08.2014 30.10.2014 11.11.2014 12.12.2014
001965 11.11.2014 15.12.2014 22.12.2014 19.01.2015
903442 11.11.2014 15.12.2014 22.12.2014 No order
901902 28.11.2014 15.12.2014 22.12.2014 16.01.2015
900636 08.05.2014 No reply 26.06.2014 No order
900442 21.01.2014 24.04.2014 11.05.2014 10.06.2014
900551 24.05.2014 No reply 10.07.2014 No order
900759 08.05.2014 30.05.2014 11.07.2014 No order
The appellant stated that he retired from NTPC as GM on 31.12.2012 and before his retirement, he had submitted his appraisal form and was given 'excellent' rating by his reporting officer but after retirement, he came to know that that his grading was revised downward without his knowledge and that is why, he had been seeking a copy of PMS report which has not been given to him till date. The respondent stated that the appellant had submitted his PACE form for the year 2012-13 in the old PACE Format for GMs, instead of the prescribed DPE format and got it appraised by his reporting officer. She stated that the appellant was given a score of 93.84 by his reporting officer as per the old system of awarding scores for executives. She submitted that these marks are subjected to further levels of normalisation/moderation at the apex level and in the case of the appellant, the CMD is the concerned authority who would have assigned him the final marks and not his reporting officer. She stated that Performance Normalisation Committee awards the final score after seeing the comparative merit of all the appraisees at the same level in the cluster. She further stated that after considering the competitive merit of the entire population in the cluster, the appellant was awarded final score of 4.54 (bottom 5%) as per the criteria laid down by DPE. She also informed that the appellant had appealed to the CMD for up gradation of score on 07.06.2014 and after examination of his case, no change in the marks was deemed necessary and the same was informed to the appellant on 24.07.2014. On a query by the Commission as to whether after award of marks, the ACR is shown to the concerned person or not, the respondent stated that up to GM level, marks are communicated to the concerned person but the analysis of ACR is not shown/given.
F.No. CIC/CC/A/2015/901872 The appellant filed RTI application 20.08.2014 seeking certified copy of his complete PMS appraisal report for the year 2012-13 including the PMS Score awarded by Reporting Officer along with final scores etc. CPIO in his reply provided PACE Score and denied copy of PACE Form stating that the same is confidential document. The FAA in his order upheld the reply of the CPIO.
The appellant stated that he had sought copy of his own PMS appraisal report for the year 2012-13 but the same has been denied by the CPIO. He requested for directions for providing a copy of the same. The respondent stated that score of the appellant was intimated to him while the PACE form being a confidential document was denied to the appellant. On query by the Commission as to how the said form is confidential, the respondent stated that as per norms, the PACE form is not given.
F.No. CIC/CC/A/2015/001965 & F.No. CIC/CC/A/2015/903442 The appellant filed RTI application 11.11.2014 seeking information on 3 points regarding details of ACR/PMS gradings of executives considered for post of GM, grading chart of each of executives along with average score awarded to each executive considered for the said post. CPIO in his reply denied information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act stating that information sought has no public interest and is 3rd party information. The FAA in his order directed the CPIO to provide clarifications in view of issues raised by applicant in appeal.
The appellant stated that information sought has been denied and requested for directions to provide the same. The respondent stated that information sought is personal information of individuals, therefore, the same was denied u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The appellant contended the same stating that average score can be provided.
F.No. CIC/CC/A/2015/901902 The appellant filed RTI application 28.11.2014 seeking average score awarded to individuals considered for promotion from E-7A to E-8 in CSB-2011. CPIO in his reply stated that no average score is awarded to individual in CSBs or CPCs. The CPIO denied individual appraisal ratings stating that the same is personal information and is exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The FAA in his order observed that the reply of the CPIO is in order. However, he directed CPIO to provide clarifications in view of the issues raised in appeal.
The appellant stated that information sought has been denied and requested for directions to provide the same. The respondent stated that no average score is awarded in CSBs and that individual appraisal rating is personal information of individuals, therefore, the same was denied u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The respondent further stated that in 2011, 113 candidates were there, out which 54 were selected. She also produced the relevant file before the Commission, showing the recommendation of the CSB for appointment to the post of GM (E8). She stated that these relevant papers regarding the recommendation of the CSB can be given to the appellant, if he so desires.
F.No. CIC/CC/A/2014/900636 The appellant filed RTI application 08.05.2014 seeking PMS score awarded to him by his reporting officer for the year 2012-13 along with NTPC's policy with regard to moderation of PMS score etc. On not receiving any response from the CPIO within the prescribed time period, the appellant filed first appeal. The FAA did not dispose of the first appeal.
The appellant requested for directions for supply of complete and specific information to him. The respondent stated that reply was sent to the appellant on 30.05.2014 and submitted a copy of the same before the Commission. The respondent further stated that the FAA's order was also complied with vide reply dated 09.10.2014.
F.No. CIC/CC/A/2014/900442 The appellant filed RTI application 21.01.2014 seeking information regarding action taken on his various letters and other related information. CPIO vide letter dated 24.04.2014 provided point wise reply to the appellant. The FAA in his order upheld the reply of the CPIO.
The appellant stated that after his retirement, an amount of Rs. 252,834.27/- was deducted from his pension due to implementation of circular no. 721/2013 dated 27.02.2013. He stated that in that circular, there was nothing mentioned about its date of implementation and money was deducted from his pension. The respondent stated that through that circular, the leave increment period was reduced and the excess amount which was paid to the beneficiaries was deducted. He stated that letters regarding the same were sent to the concerned persons. He informed the Commission that about 158 employees were affected with this circular and two of their ex-employees have already approached the court and the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Court.
F.No. CIC/CC/A/2014/900551 The appellant filed RTI application 24.05.2014 seeking certified copy of various circulars, resolutions etc. CPIO vide letter dated 30.06.2014 provided point wise reply to the appellant. The FAA in his order directed to provide clarifications/information to the appellant.
The appellant stated that information on point 7 & 9 has not been provided and requested for directions to provide the same. The respondent stated that complete information as available on record has already been provided to the appellant. He stated that information sought on point 9 relates to Pension Trust which is an independent body. Regarding point 7, he stated that the said document is not traceable and the same was communicated to the appellant as well. On query by the Commission as to whether they can access information from Pension Trust, the respondent replied in the affirmative.
F.No. CIC/CC/A/2014/900759 The appellant filed RTI application 08.05.2014 seeking information on 8 points on various issues. CPIO vide letter dated 23/24.06.2014 provided point wise reply to the appellant. The FAA did not dispose of the first appeal.
The respondent stated that complete point wise information has been provided to the appellant vide reply dated 23/24.06.2014 and submitted a copy of the same before the Commission.
Decision:-
After hearing both the parties and on perusal of record, the Commission notes that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 566"
has observed as under:-
"8. In our opinion, the view taken in Dev Dutt v. Union of India & Ors., (2008) 8 SCC 725, that every entry in ACR of a public servant must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period is legally sound and helps in achieving threefold objectives. First, the communication of every entry in the ACR to a public servant helps him/her to work harder and achieve more that helps him in improving his work and give better results. Second and equally important, on being made aware of the entry in the ACR, the public servant may feel dissatisfied with the same. Communication of the entry enables him/her to make representation for upgradation of the remarks entered in the ACR. Third, communication of every entry in the ACR brings transparency in recording the remarks relating to a public servant and the system becomes more conforming to the principles of natural justice. We, accordingly, hold that every entry in ACR--poor, fair, average, good or very good--must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period."
In view of the above observations, the Commission in file no. CIC/CC/A/2015/901872, directs the respondent to provide a copy of his PMS appraisal report as sought by the appellant in his RTI application along with other relevant documents related to his appraisal form if any, within two weeks of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
In file nos. CIC/CC/A/2015/001965 & CIC/CC/A/2015/903442, the Commission concurs with the stand of the respondent authority.
In file no. CIC/CC/A/2015/901902, the Commission directs the respondent to provide a copy of the documents related to recommendation of CSB after redacting any personal/3rd party information, if any, to the appellant, within two weeks of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
In file no. CIC/CC/A/2014/900636, the Commission concludes that information sought and as available on record has been provided to the appellant and no further action is required in the matter.
In file no. CIC/CC/A/2014/900442, the Commission concludes that information sought and as available on record has been provided to the appellant. Regarding the deduction of amount from the appellant's pension, it was in pursuance of a policy decision against which two employees have approached the Hon'ble Court and the same has been intimated to the appellant as well.
In file no. CIC/CC/A/2015/900551, the Commission directs the respondent to access the information as sought on point 9 of the RTI Application from Pension Trust and provide the same to the appellant within two weeks of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. The respondent is also directed to certify that document sought in point 7 of the RTI application is not traceable.
In file no. CIC/CC/A/2015/900759, the Commission concludes that information sought and as available on record has been furnished to the appellant.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner 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.
(B.D. Harit) Deputy Secretary & Deputy Registrar Copy to:-
Central Public Information Officer under RTI First Appellate Authority under RTI (Shri Pramod K. Yadav), (Shri S. N. Ganguly), N. T. P. C. Limited, N. T. P. C. Limited, NTPC Bhawan, SCOPE Complex, NTPC Bhawan, SCOPE Complex, 7, Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, 7, Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. New Delhi-110003.
Shri Sunil Kumar Johar 317, S.F.S. Flats, Ashok Vihar, Phase-4, Delhi-110052.