Central Information Commission
Shwetang Pandya vs Institute For Plasma Research on 7 April, 2022
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंग नाथमागग, मुन नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/IPRES/A/2020/694964
CIC/IPRES/A/2021/652602
Dr. Shwetang Pandya ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Institute for Plasma Research, Gandhinagar ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Through: Shri Vikas Chaudhary - PIO and Shri
Harsha Chamunda - APIO
Date of Hearing : 06.04.2022
Date of Decision : 07.04.2022
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2nd Appeal
No. on received on
/dated
694964 23.09.2020 19.10.2020 30.10.2020 20.11.2020 05.12.2020
652602 05.08.2021 03.09.2021 17.09.2021 11.10.2021 06.11.2021
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/IPRES/A/2020/694964 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated23.09.2020 which was responded to by the CPIO, IPR vide letter dated 19.10.2020 replied as under:-Page 1 of 10 Page 2 of 10
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.10.2020. The FAA/Sr. Professor-H vide order dated 20.11.2020 held as under:-Page 3 of 10 Page 4 of 10
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(2) CIC/IPRES/A/2021/652602 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated05.08.2021 seeking information on following points:-Page 5 of 10
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.09.2021. The FAA/Sr. Professor-H vide order dated 11.10.2021 held as under:-Page 6 of 10 Page 7 of 10
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A common written submission dated 30.03.2022 has been received from the Appellant and duly taken on record.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing was scheduled through video conference after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through video conference and reiterated their respective contentions.Page 8 of 10
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts of the case, it is noted that the denial of the Appellant's APAR by the Respondent amounts to violation of the Apex Court's decision in the case of Dev Dutt vs. Union of India. The Commission has even in the past held in a number of decisions held that in the context of disclosure of contents of the employee's own ACR/APAR, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision of Dev Dutt vs Union of India & Ors. dated 12.05.2008, [Civil Appeal No. 7631 OF 2002], 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 the light of the ratio of the above judgement of the Apex Court, the Commission is of the view that the Appellant is entitled to obtain a copy of his own APAR, as a matter of right, from the Respondent. The Respondent is thus directed to ensure that information sought by the Appellant is furnished to him as per the extant legal position and in terms of provisions of the RTI Act, within three weeks of receipt of this order. The Respondent shall submit a compliance report before the Commission in this regard with necessary proof of service by 30.04.2022, failing which appropriate penal action shall be initiated as per law.
The instant appeals stand disposed off with the above observations.
Y. K. Sinha ( वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Page 9 of 10 Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. चिटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 10 of 10