Central Information Commission
Rameshbabu G vs National Institute Of Fashion ... on 30 June, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/NIFTY/A/2019/653976
In the matter of:
Rameshbabu G
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
PIO (Establishment)
National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT),
Establishment Department, Head office,
NIFT Campus, Hauz Khas, New Delhi - 110016
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 12/04/2019 CPIO replied on : 29/05/2019 First appeal filed on : 13/06/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 12/07/2019 Second Appeal dated : 07/10/2019 Date of Hearing : 29/06/2021 Date of Decision : 29/06/2021 The following were present: Appellant: Heard over phone
Respondent: Shri Raj Singh, & Dy. Director & PIO, heard over phone Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide the APAR copies of G Ramesh Babu, Joint Director, NIFT, Kannur for the years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18.
2. Provide copies of all the representations received for upgradation against adverse remarks of APAR from all the NIFT group A employees for the years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18.1
3. Provide the copies of material evidences submitted to the competent authority for both rejection and upgradation of representations during 2013-
14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 of group A employees of NIFT.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the desired information on points no. 2 to 9 was not provided to him. He also relied on an order passed by the Commission on 18.09.2011 in File No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000464 while submitting that in that case the APARs of 17 officers was disclosed to the appellant therein.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 10.05.2019.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the CPIO in his reply dated 10.05.2019 had requested the appellant to deposit photocopying charges for getting the desired information on point no. 2, 7, 8 & 9 and for the rest of the points, the information was denied Thereafter, the sought for information on point no.1 was provided to the appellant on 29.05.2019. The appellant is aggrieved as according to him, the information sought on points no. 2 to 6 were incorrectly denied to him. However, the Commission finds that the information was rightly denied as the information sought on these points is purely in the nature of personal information of third parties and therefore is exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
It is pertinent to refer to the 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 in the case of Dev Dutt Vs UOI, 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."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of THDC India Ltd. vs. R.S. Raturi, W.P. (C) No. 903 dated 08.07.2014 had held as under:
212. However, this Court is of the view that the respondent is entitled to the contents of his own ACR after redaction of the names of the reviewing, reporting and accepting officers. In fact, another coordinate Bench of this Court in THDC India Ltd. v. T. Chandra Biswas 199 (2013) DLT 284 has held as under:-
9. While the learned counsel for the respondent has contended before me that the respondent ought to have been supplied with the ACRs for the period 2004 to 2007, the respondent has not assailed that part of the order of the CIC. In my view, while the contention of the respondent has merit, which is that she cannot be denied information with regard to her own ACRs and that information cannot fall in the realm of any of the exclusionary provisions cited before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner i.e. Section 8(1)(d), (e) and
(j), there is a procedural impediment, in as much as, there is no petition filed to assail that part of the order passed by the CIC.
9.1. In my view, the right to obtain her own ACRs inheres in the respondent which cannot be denied to the respondent under the provisions of Section 8 (1)(d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The ACRs are meant to inform an employee as to the manner in which he has performed in the given period and the areas which require his attention, so that he may improve his performance qua his work.
9.2 That every entry in the ACR of an employee requires to be disclosed whether or not an executive instruction is issued in that behalf-is based on the premise that disclosure of the contents of ACR results in fairness in action and transparency in public administration. See Dev Dutt vs. Union of India 8 SCC 725 at page 732, paragraph 13; page 733, paragraph 17; and at page 737, paragraphs 36, 37 and 38."
The Commission is unable to find any flaw in the reply of the CPIO, hence no further relief can be given on points no. 2 to 5 of the RTI application.
For point no.6, the appellant submitted that he had sought the file notings related to his APAR and this information should be provided to him. The Commission is in agreement with these submissions that the appellant is entitled to get the information which is purely related to him. At this point, the CPIO submitted that he is willing to supply this part of the information to him. While doing so, the respondent is free to mask such information as the names of officers who have given the notings by applying the provisions under Sec 10 of the RTI Act .
For point no 7, 8 & 9, the CPIO is directed to supply all the relevant information once again to the appellant.
Decision:
3In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to provide the desired information on point no. 6, 7, 8 & 9 to the appellant as per the discussion held during the hearing. This direction is to be complied with within a period of 10 days from the date of issue of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू नाआय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दनांक/ Date 4