Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Ritesh Pal vs Spmcil Corporate Office on 16 January, 2025

                                  के ीय सूचना आयोग
                          Central Information Commission
                               बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                           Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                             नई िद    ी, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं     ा / Complaint No. CIC/SPMCO/C/2023/654788


 Ritesh Pal                                               ...िशकायतकता/Complainant

                                       VERSUS
                                        बनाम

 CPIO:
 Security Printing and Minting Corporation                    ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
 of India Ltd.,
 Janpath, New Delhi

Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:

 RTI : 16.10.2023            FA      : 17.11.2023              Complaint : 12.12.2023

 CPIO : 23.11.2023           FAO : 04.11.2023                  Hearing   : 13.01.2025


Date of Decision: 15.01.2025

                                       CORAM:
                                 Hon'ble Commissioner
                               _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                      ORDER

1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 16.10.2023 seeking information on the following points:

(i) Provide attested copies of report, letters, mails and office notes generated against my representation dated 18-12-2021 submitted for review of Annual Performance Assessment Report (APAR) for the period 2020 - 2021.

Also provide a copy of communication made to me conveying the output of the representation.

(ii) Provide attested copies of Rules / clauses of SPMCIL for cases where Reporting officer who served for less than three years in SPMCIL has given the grading but Reviewing / Accepting Officer is not able to finalize the Annual Performance Assessment Report.

In such cases how to allocate the final APAR grading. Also provide the name and designation of the Nodal Officer earmarked for APAR who was assigned the duty to prepare the finalization of APAR 2020-2021 grading.

(iii) Provide information with supporting documents regarding action taken on my letters dated 30-01-2023, 26-05-2023 and 11-10-2023 submitted at India Security Press, Nashik.

(iv) Provide attested copy of Time schedule for completion of APAR for the period 2020- 2021.

2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 17.11.2023.

3. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 23.11.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

Reply to point no. 1 As per available records, this office had received total 17 numbers of representations (including Sh. Ritesh Pal) from Executives for the year 2020-21 after disclosure of APAR. Since, all the representations were clubbed and put up in single file and the office note has APAR Grading/Rating of the individual Executive, the same cannot be disclosed as it relates to 'personal information' of third party, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity and interest, the disclosure of such information is exempted U/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005.

Moreover, copies of the letter issued to the Unit for review of APAR grading in respect of Sh. Ritesh Pal; the report received after due approval of the Accepting Authority; an email issued to ISP-Nashik for informing to the individual is attached herewith as Annexure-A. Reply to point no.2 The query is in the nature of seeking clarificatory/ presumptive response from the PIO and the same do not construe 'information' as defined u/s 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005.

However, the provision available in amendment in SPMCIL Performance Management System notified on 04.05.2017 is attached herewith as Annexure- B. The name and designation of the Nodal Officer is Sh. Abhishek Srivastava, Jt. GM (HR) Reply to point no. 3 There is no provision available in the SPMCIL PMS Policy to deal with subsequent representations for review of APAR grading, of a year once the final decision on the first representation for Review of the APAK has been disclosed to the Officer. Hence, no action taken.

Reply to point no. 4 A copy of the time schedule exist in the PMS Policy of the Company for completion of APAR is attached herewith as Annexure-C."

The FAA vide order dated 04.11.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 12.12.2023.

5. The Complainant attended the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Ms. Shivangi Chander, CPIO and Shri Naresh Kumar, attended the hearing in-person.

6. The Complainant inter alia submitted that the information provided by the respondent was incomplete and unsatisfactory.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the office had received a total number of 17 representations from executives (including the appellant) for the year 2020-21, after disclosure of the APAR and all the representations were clubbed into a single file. Therefore, the file contained office notes and APAR notings of other individuals and it was not feasible to segregate details of such third parties before parting the same with the complainant. Further, the respondent reiterated that the applicable policy had been shared with the appellant.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the respondent replied on 23.11.2023. The CPIO contended that the office notes pertaining to appellant's representations about APAR were denied to him, since similar representations of other individuals had been clubbed into a single file. During the hearing, the CPIO confirmed that all representations of executives had been clubbed into a single file and the office notes contained personal details of other executives. Moreover, the respondent while partly denying the information has cited the reasons and has provided the remaining information, as per records available with them. It is noted that the relief sought in the complaint is not for the disclosure of information but for initiating action against the CPIO. The Commission finds no mala fide in the decision taken by the CPIO as it was not the case that the denial of information was without application of mind or with any malfeasance. 8.1. The Commission would like to draw the appellant's attention towards the judgment dated 12.12.2011 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chief Information Commissioner & Anr. vs State of Manipur & Anr. wherein the following observations were made:

35. ...Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Section 18 and Section 19 of the said Act is substantially different. The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. The contention of the appellant that information can be accessed through Section 18 is contrary to the express provision of Section 19 of the Act. It is well known when a procedure is laid down statutorily and there is no challenge to the said statutory procedure the Court should not, in the name of interpretation, lay down a procedure which is contrary to the express statutory provision. It is a time-honoured principle as early as from the decision in Taylor v. Taylor [(1876) 1 Ch. D. 426] that where statute provides for something to be done in a particular manner it can be done in that manner alone and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden.

...

37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a substitute for the other."

Therefore, the Commission finds no ground for grating any relief in the complaint. Accordingly, the complaint is closed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 15.01.2025 Page 5 of 6 Authenticated true copy Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO, Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Ltd., 16th Floor, Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi-110001

2. Ritesh Pal Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)