Central Information Commission
Ramesh Chander vs Union Public Service Commission on 8 June, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/UPSCM/A/2022/140581
CIC/UPSCM/A/2022/141441
Ramesh Chander अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION, RTI CELL, DHOLPUR
HOUSE, SHAHJAHAN ROAD, NEW
DELHI-110069. ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22/03/2023 Date of Decision : 30/05/2023 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani Relevant facts emerging from appeals: RTI applications filed on : 17-19/03/2021 & 04/03/2021 CPIO replied on : 24/03/2021 First appeals filed on : 05/04/2021 First Appellate Authority orders : 20/05/2021 2nd Appeal/Complaints dated : 22/08/2022 Information Sought
The Appellant filed RTI Applications dated 17-19/03/2021 and 28/02/2021- 04/03/2021 seeking the following information, respectively:
1"In connection with the DPC which was conducted by the UPSC in the year 2020 /for promotion to the cadre of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax from the cadre of the Commissioners, it is requested to supply the minutes along with the chart showing the assessment of the officers recommended or not recommended along with the reasons wherever applicable."
"Kindly supply the minutes of the DPC held for Panel year 2018 and 2019 for the purpose of promotion of the Officers of the Indian Revenue Service (CBDT) from the cadre of Commissioners of Income Tax to the cadre of Principal Commissioners"
The CPIO replied cumulatively on 24.03.2021 as under:
"I am to refer to your applications dated 04.03.2021 and 17.03.2021 on the subject cited above and to say that on 10.12.2020, a meeting of the DPC for considering promotion to the post of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax in CBDT, Department of Revenue for the vacancy years 2018 (2nd DPC) and 2019 was held. The information sought by you in both applications is as under:"
S. Date of Detail of information sought CPIO's Reply:
No application
1. 04.03.2021 In connection with the DPC which was A copy of the conducted by the UPSC in the year 2020 /for relevant DPC promotion to the cadre of the Principal minutes (the Commissioner of Income Tax from the cadre of assessment in the Commissioners, it is requested to supply the respect of eligible minutes along with the chart showing the officers is at assessment of the officers recommended or not Annexure - I to the recommended along with the reasons wherever minutes), which applicable. contains 16 pages is attached herewith.
2. 17.03.2021 Kindly supply the minutes of the DPC held for Reply is same as Panel year 2018 and 2019 for the purpose of given above.
promotion of the Officers of the Indian Revenue Service (CBDT) from the cadre of Commissioners of Income Tax to the cadre of Principal Commissioners 2 Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed First Appeal(s) dated 05.04.2021 stating as under:
FAA's order, dated 20.05.2021 observed as under:
"2. With regard to the 1st Appeal dated 05.04.2021(received on 08 04.2021). it has been submitted that the applicant was considered by the DPC held on 10.12.2020 for the vacancy year 2019 for promotion to the post of Principal Commissioner of income Tax. However, the recommendations in respect of the applicant were placed in 'Sealed Cover' by the DPC as he was not clear from vigilance angle as intimated by the Department Further, the DOP&T's OM No 3 22011/4/91-Estt (A) dated 14.09.1992 regarding promotion of Government Servants against whom disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending, states that:
2.1 The Departmental Promotion Committee shall assess the suitability of the Government servants coming within the purview of the circumstances mentioned above along with other eligible candidates without taking into consideration the disciplinary case/criminal prosecution pending. The assessment of the DPC, including 'Unfit for Promotion' , and the grading awarded by it will be kept in a sealed cover. The authority competent to fill the vacancy should be separately advised to fill the vacancy the higher grade only in an officiating capacity when the findings of the DPC in respect of the suitability of a Government Servant for his promotion are kept in a sealed cover......
2.2 The same procedure outlined in para 2.1 above will be followed by the subsequent Departmental Promotion Committees convened till the disciplinary case/criminal Prosecution against the Government servant concerned is concluded.
3. On the conclusion of the disciplinary case/criminal prosecution which results in dropping of allegations against the Govt. servant, the sealed cover or covers shall be opened."
4 In view of the above, the copy of assessment sheet having gradings of the officers assessed by the CPC cannot be provided to the applicant.
4.1. So far as information for the year 2020 is concerned, no DPC proposal for considering promotion to the post of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax for the vacancy year 2020 has been received from the Department in the UPSC. Therefore, the question of furnishing information for the year 2020 does not arise.
4.2 Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 30.04.2015 in WP(C) No. 4735/2011 filed by Union of India Vs. Shri D.S. Meena held that information relating to ACRs of officers considered by the DPC cannot be disclosed being personal to the officers concerned.
4.3. The request of the appellant for personal hearing to enable him to orally plead his case can also not be acceded to since information relating to assessment of his APARs and his recommendations have been placed in sealed cover by the DPC.
45 Thus the reply furnished by the CPIO vide letter dated 24 03 2021 was in order."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal stating inter alia as under:
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present and assisted by Sunil Kumar Gaur through intra-video conference.
Respondent: S S Negi, US & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The Rep. of the Appellant stated that the denial of the information related to the Appellant's recommendations and gradings is unwarranted and without appreciation of the RTI Act provisions.
The CPIO submitted that the permissible information in terms of the DPC minutes were provided to the Appellant, but the recommendations and gradings of the Appellant were placed in a sealed cover pending a vigilance case against him. He further submitted that it is not for him to open the sealed cover or for that matter any other authority other than the concerned department, only upon the conclusion of disciplinary case/criminal prosecution resulting in dropping of 5 allegations against the charged officer, and when found fit, the Appellant will be promoted by the ACC.
The Appellant interjected to state that he has been exonerated of the vigilance case as on date, but when asked about the exact date or time period of exoneration, the Appellant expressed his inability to state the same.
The CPIO reiterated that at the time of the DPC recommendations and at the time of providing the averred reply, the vigilance case was pending.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that as far as the denial of the information related to the third parties under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is concerned, the same is appropriate as per the provisions of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."6
Now, as regards the denial of the information related to the Appellant's recommendations and gradings, the Commission finds that the CPIO has duly justified the denial as per Section 19(5) of the RTI Act.
The facts of the instant matter also warrant taking into consideration the Preamble of the RTI Act which provides as under:
"And whereas revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information; And whereas it is necessary to harmonize these conflicting interests while preserving the paramountcy of the democratic ideal;.."
Having observed as above, no action is warranted in the matter.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7