Central Information Commission
Mrashishkumar vs Gail (India) Limited on 4 September, 2014
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/LS/A/2013/901588/SH
File No. CIC/LS/A/2013/901591/SH
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 4th September 2014
Date of decision : 4th September 2014
Name of the Appellant : Shri Ashish Kumar,
7, Om Apartment, Suhag Nagar,
Firozabad283203, U P
Name of the Public : Central Public Information Officer,
Authority/Respondent GAIL (India) Limited,
16, Bhikaji Cama Place, R K Puram, New Delhi 110 066 The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondents, the following were present in person:
1. Shri D. V. Shastri, GM (HRD).
2. Ms. Neeta Badhwar, CM (HRD).
3. Shri Rakesh, SM (HRD).
4. Shri L. C. Lohumi, CM (RTI).
5. Shri K. M. Sharma, Manager (RTI).
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal File No. CIC/LS/A/2013/901588/SH This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 15.3.2013 filed by the Appellant, seeking information regarding marks provided by Departmental Promotion Committee 2012 to himself and ten other employees of the Respondents. The CPIO responded on 10.4.2013, wherein the marks provided to the Appellant were disclosed, but the marks of other employees were denied under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority on 22.4.2013. In his order dated 9.5.2013, the FAA upheld the CPIO's reply. The Appellant filed second appeal dated 5.8.2013 to the CIC, which was received by the Commission on 13.8.2013.
File No. CIC/LS/A/2013/901591/SH
2. This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 15.3.2013 filed by the Appellant, seeking information regarding the ePMS ratings of assessment years 2006 to 2012 of himself and ten other employees of the Respondents. The CPIO responded on 4.4.2013 and provided the ratings of the Appellant, while denying the ratings of other employees under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority on 22.4.2013. In his order dated 9.5.2013, the FAA upheld the CPIO's reply and also claimed exemption in terms of section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act. The Appellant filed second appeal dated 5.8.2013 to the CIC, which was received by the Commission on 14.8.2013.
3. We heard the submissions of the Appellant and the Respondents. The Appellant submitted that he has not been provided the marks awarded to other ten employees by the Departmental Promotion Committee. He further submitted that he has not been provided the details of marks in ePMS ratings of six assessment years in the format enclosed with his RTI application. The Respondents reiterated the stand taken by them in their responses and further submitted that the disclosure of marks / ratings was done as per the policy guidelines of the Respondents. The Appellant submitted that non disclosure of marks of other employees is in violation of the principle of "Right to Equality"
and alleged that undue favour is being shown to some employees by the Respondents in the matter of promotion.
4. We have considered the records and the submissions made before us by both he parties. We reproduce below the views of the High Court of Delhi in the case of THDC India Ltd. Vs. R. K. Raturi, decided on 8.7.2014 in regard to disclosure of marks of DPC proceedings of other employees: "This Court is of the view that ACR grading/ratings as also the marks given to the candidates based on the said ACR grading/ratings and their interview marks contained in the DPC proceedings can be disclosed only to the concerned employee and not to any other employee as that would constitute third party information.."
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India dated 12.5.2008 has referred to the issue of disclosure of ACR gradings in detail. Relevant para is extracted below: "In our opinion, every entry (and not merely a poor or adverse entry) relating to an employee under the State or an instrumentality of the State, whether in civil, judicial, police or other service (except the military) must be communicated to him, within a reasonable period, and it makes no difference whether there is a bench mark or not. Even if there is no bench mark, noncommunication of an entry may adversely affect the employee's chances of promotion (or getting some other benefit), because when comparative merit is being considered for promotion (or some other benefit) a person having a `good' or `average' or `fair' entry certainly has less chances of being selected than a person having a `very good' or `outstanding' entry."
6. The Appellant has not established any larger public interest for disclosure of the information regarding third party employees to him, except for making an unsubstantiated allegation regarding favour shown to some employees by the Respondents in the matter of promotion.
7. In view of the foregoing, we direct the CPIO to provide copies of the ePMS reports of the Appellant to him for the period 2006 to 2012. The CPIO is further directed to complete action on our above directive within twenty days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. We uphold the decision of the Respondents in denying the information relating to third party employees.
8. With the above directions and observations, the two appeals are disposed of.
9. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal) 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.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar