Central Information Commission
Mr.R K Raturi vs Ministry Of Power on 4 January, 2013
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/LS/A/2012/002538SM
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 4 January 2013
Date of decision : 4 January 2013
Name of the Appellant : Shri R K Ratudi,
Sr. Engineer (New Plg.) THDC India Ltd.,
New Tihri, Garhwal.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, THDC India Limited,
Ganga Bhawan, Pragatipuram,
Bypass Road, Rishikesh - 249 201.
The Appellate Authority,
THDC India Limited,
Ganga Bhawan, Pragatipuram,
Bypass Road, Rishikesh - 249 201.
The Appellant was present.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Gopal Krishna, Sr. Manager (Pers.)
was present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. Both the parties were present during the hearing. We heard their submissions.
3. In his RTI application, the Appellant had sought a number of information, largely pertaining to the promotion from E3 to E4. These included not only the proceedings of the DPC but also the copies of the Annual Confidential Rolls (ACRs) of the Appellant himself. The CPIO had provided some of the information but he had also withheld a number of information, mainly, the copies of the ACRs and the comparative statement showing the gradings of CIC/LS/A/2012/002538SM those considered by the DPC. The CPIO had claimed that this information was held in a fiduciary capacity and, therefore, could not be disclosed. The Appellate Authority had endorsed the stand taken by the CPIO.
4. We have carefully considered the contents of the RTI application and the response of the CPIO. The objective of the Right to Information (RTI) Act is to bring about transparency in the functioning of the public authorities. All decision making in the government and all its undertakings must be objective and transparent. It is only by placing the details of all decision making in the public domain that such objectivity and transparency can be ensured. Therefore, we do not see any reason why the DPC proceedings, specially, the comparative gradings of those recommended for promotion should not be disclosed. It is not at all correct to claim that such information is held in a fiduciary capacity. After all, the DPC operates as a part of the administrative decisionmaking process in any organisation. The material that it considers is also generated within the organisation. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the DPC proceedings including the recommendations made by it can be said to be held by the public authority in a fiduciary capacity. About the ACRs of the Appellant, the Supreme Court of India has already held that the civilian employees must be allowed access to their confidential rolls, specially when these are held out against them in the matter of their career promotion. Following the Supreme Court order, the Department of Personnel and Training, we understand, has already issued a circular for disclosure of ACR.
5. Thus, keeping in view the above, we are of the opinion that the CPIO must disclose the following information to the Appellant: i. The photocopy of the DPC proceedings including the comparative grading statement pertaining to the recommended candidates only; CIC/LS/A/2012/002538SM ii. the photocopy of the ACRs of the Appellant himself for the period mentioned by him in his RTI application.
6. This information should be sent to the Appellant within 10 working days of receiving this order. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Chief 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 CIC/LS/A/2012/002538SM