Central Information Commission
Udhav Shanker Maurya vs Prime Minister'S Office on 8 September, 2021
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली,
ली New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/PMOIN/A/2019/118536
Shri Udhav Shanker Maurya ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
CPIO: ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
National Technical Research Organization
Date of Hearing : 07.09.2021
Date of Decision : 08.09.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06.12.2018
PIO replied on : 10.01.2019
First Appeal filed on : 09.02.2019
First Appellate Order on : 15.03.2019
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 26.03.2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed RTI application dated 06.12.2018 seeking information on 05 points inter alia as under:
Etc The CPIO,NTROvide letter dated 10.01.2019 stated that their organisation is exempted from the purview of the RTI Act, 2005 as per Section 24 r/w the second schedule of the Act. However, a copy of an NTRO letter dated 03.01.2019 was provided to the Appellant.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.02.2019.The FAA vide order dated 15.03.2019 held as under:Page 1 of 3
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing through audio conference. While explaining the background of the matter, he stated that his services were terminated by NTRO after 10 years without any reasons/ justification despite his exemplary performance. Hence, he filed the instant RTI application seeking information on several points including the minutes of inquiry pertaining to termination of his services, copy of his APAR, payment of one month pay plus allowance, etc which was not satisfactorily answered by the Respondent. He further stated that he required the documents to substantiate his claims before the appropriate judicial forum.
The Respondent represented by Shri N C Bhuyan, Dy Director, NTRO participated in the hearing through audio conference. He stated that a copy of letter dated 03.01.2019 was already provided to the Appellant which answered all his RTI queries except the APAR which was not provided to him as their organisation is exempted from the purview of the RTI Act, 2005 as per Section 24 r/w the Second Schedule of the Act. On being queried by the Commission regarding the reason why the APAR was not disclosed to the Appellant despite the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt vs Union of India & Ors on 12 May, 2008, Civil Appeal No. 7631 OF 2002, no satisfactory response was offered by Shri Bhuyan who stated that the same may be disclosed separately to the Appellant if he approached the Administrative Officer for the same.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission notes that information on all points except point no 3 has been provided to the Appellant for which exemption u/s 24 r/w the Second Schedule is claimed. It is clear that there is an inherent contradiction in the reply of the CPIO as Section 24 is selectively claimed in order to deny APAR gradings of the employee. In the context of disclosure of entry in the employee's own ACR, the Page 2 of 3 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision of Dev Dutt vs Union of India & Ors on 12 May, 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 ratio of the above judgement and the fact that the Respondent public authority is covered under Section 24 of the RTI Act, the Commission is of the view that the Appellant is at liberty to obtain a copy of his own APAR, as a matter of right, from the Respondent.
With the above direction, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई.
वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3