Central Information Commission
Ganesan Mani vs Bhabha Atomic Resarch Centre (Mumbai) on 22 April, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/BARCM/A/2023/633057
Shri Ganesan Mani ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (Mumbai)
Date of Hearing : 18.04.2024
Date of Decision : 18.04.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 01.04.2023
PIO replied on : 28.04.2023
First Appeal filed on : 17.05.2023
First Appellate Order on : 21.06.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 07.07.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.04.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"Please supply me the following information in respect of following My APAR grading particular of information, I am B.A.R.C employee Emp.no.30319,c.c no.NG109/189.
1) Certified copy of the APAR grading (period 2017 to 2018)
2) Certified copy of the APAR grading (period 2018 to 2019)
3) Certified copy of the APAR grading (period 2019 to 2020)
4) Certified copy of the APAR grading (period 2020 to 2021)
5) Certified copy of the APAR grading (period 2021 to 2022)
6) Certified copy of the APAR grading reporting officer (period 2021 to 2022)
7) As per appellate authority vide RTI reg no BARC/A/E/23/00005 in reply stated as per policy decision of department copies of entire contents of APAR not provided to the official. However it is informed that only copy of communication and acceptance the apar grading are give. So please provide a copy of the above concerned department policy/orders/documents/om."
Page 1 Dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.05.2023. The FAA vide order dated 21.06.2023 stated as under:-
"5.On perusal of the records and considering the factual matrix of the case, it is observed that the RTI application was disposed off vide reply No. BARC/RTI/2023/04/7779/781 dated 28.04.2023 and the same was also sent through post to the Appellant's address as mentioned in the RTI application.
6. On further analysis of the appeal, it is noted that the application was not disposed off online in time but inadvertently the same was placed under process for want of documentation charges of Rs.10/- though the RTI reply should have been disposed off on due date. However, on receipt of the appeal, the RTI application was disposed off on-line on 02.06.2023.
7. As regards Appellant's contention "no response has been received from the PIO within the time limit for furnishing information under RTI", it is noted that as mentioned above at Para- (5) & (6), the application was disposed off (on 28.04.2023) within the time limit, but inadvertently the same was not done online. Hence, considering the spirit of RTI and for maintaining accountability, PIO is directed to provide the documents as mentioned in the RTI reply dated 28.04.2023 free of cost along with the Appellate Order."
PIO furnished reply dated 28.04.2023 as under :
1 to 5 Copy of the communication and acceptance of the APAR grading for the period 2017 to 2022 will be made available on payment of Rs.10/-
@ Rs.2/ per page (05 no. of pages) by way of Demand Draft or Pay order issued by any Bank payable at Mumbai or Indian Postal Order or e- IPO payable to "Accounts Officer, BARC.
6- As per policy of the department, the same cannot be provided. 7- The information sought is attached (01 page) Being Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 12.04.2024 has been received from the CPIO, BARC, Mumbai and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under :
3. The Appellate Authority vide Appellate Order no.
BARC/RTI/2023/04/7779/1296 dated 21.06.2023 (Annexure-IV) had observed that the appellant is seeking information to provide certified copies of APAR grading from 2017 to 2022, Certified copy of the APAR grading reporting officer (2021-2022) and to provide the order regarding the policy decision of the department not to provide the entire contents of APAR to the official. It was informed that as per Appellate order dated 21.06.2023, Appellate Authority has directed PIO to provide the documents as mentioned in the RTI reply dated 28.04.2023in response to RTI application dated 01.04.2023, which Page 2 were inadvertently not attached with the Appellate order while disposing off the appeal online. However, the same is handed over to Shri Ganesan Mani (Appellant) on 11.07.2023 vide Letter No BARC/RT1/2023/04/7779/1/54426/2023 dated 11.07.2023 (Annexure-V).
4. The Appellant has now preferred a second appeal to the Hon'ble CIC stating that even after 45 days he has not received any information from the Public Information Officer. Therefore, he has appealed to the Appellate Authority against which reply dated 21.06.2023 was received wherein the Appellate Authority has has directed the PIO to give me all the information (SI 1 to 5) free of cost. But after more than ten days, the order of the Appellate Authority was not followed by the PIO. Further, the information in the serial No 7 was sought from the PIO, the appellate authority, a copy of which is enclosed with the appeal reply, stated. But the copy is not attached.
5. In view of the above, the following points are respectfully submitted before Hon'ble CIC for consideration as under:
(i) It is observed with respect to queries No 1 to 5 regarding the certified copy of communications and acceptance o the APAR grading for the period from 2017 to 2022 and the policy decision of the department not to provide the entire contents of APAR to the official with respect to query No 7, was inadvertently not attached with the Appellate Order dated 21.06.2023 however the same has been provided to Shri Ganesan Mani (Appellant) vide this office note No. BARC/RTI/2023/04/7779/1/54426/2023 dated 11.07.2023.
6. The above submissions are respectfully placed before the Hon'ble Commission.
Written submission dated 17.04.2024 has been received from the Appellant and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present through audio-conferencing.
Respondent: Mr. B.V. Balaji, Chief Administrative Officer- present through video conferencing.
The Appellant stated that he had sought copies of his APAR but same has been wrongly denied by the PIO. He referred decision of Hon'ble Supreme court whereby copy of APAR has been made available to the employee. He further stated that the information sought at point no. 6 of the RTI Application i.e. the APAR grading reporting officer details should be furnished by the PIO.
The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that as per policy decision of their Department, copies of APARs are not provided to the officials and same cannot be claimed by an employee under RTI Act. He further stated that copy of the communication and acceptance of the APAR grading has been provided to the Appellant.
Page 3 Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures to the Appellant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that at point No. 1 to 5 of the instant RTI Application the Appellant has sought copies of his own APAR. Commission notes that the outright denial of copy of APAR of an employee is not correct. The issue involved is no more res-integra and reference in this regard can be made to decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt vs Union of India & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 7631 of 2002) dated 12 May, 2008 , wherein it has been 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 view of the above judgement ACRs/APARs ought to be disclosed to an employee. Thus, CPIO, BARC, Mumbai is directed to re-examine the instant RTI application and provide a revised response with respect to point No. 1 to 5 of the instant RTI Application in accordance with the provisions of the Act to the Appellant within 30 days from the receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission. In doing so PIO must make sure that information which is exempted from disclosure under RTI Act, 2005 or any third party information must not be disclosed to the Appellant and same must be redacted under section 10 of the RTI Act, 2005 prior to the said disclosure.
Page 4 However, as regards the Point No. 6 of the RTI Application, the Commission is of the view that the information sought is exempted under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. No further action lies.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)