Central Information Commission
S Ashokan vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited ... on 15 April, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/BHELD/A/2021/113953
S Ashokan ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited,
RTIC ell, Corporate office, BHEL
House, Siri Fort, New Delhi - 110049. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12/04/2022
Date of Decision : 12/04/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 31/10/2020
CPIO replied on : 16/12/2020
First appeal filed on : 12/12/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 23/02/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 19/03/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 31.10.2020 seeking the following information:
1) Furnish me a copy of promotion policy for AGM to GM during 2003 to 2009 with the marks fixed to different criteria's like performance score deduced from eMAP 1 score, Qualification, experience etc. and the marks in the hands of DPC. Also the copy of synopsis prepared by HR for the use of DPC for the evaluation.
2) Kindly furnish the marks scored by the officers promoted to GM cadre in Bangalore units from 2003 to 2009 under different criteria's which totals to pre-
suitability marks.
The requirement is tabulated form. Mention my name in Sl No I and others as promoted officer 1, 2, 3 - - -in order of their ranking of promotion without mentioning their names. lf any criterion is not applicable replace it by the right one.
ln the same way the details to be furnished in the above format lor 2004,2005, 2006, 2007,2008 & 2009.
3) How many officers scored pre-suitability marks less than me promoted as GM from 2003 to 2009 in Bangalore and whole of BHEL Corporation? Only numbers.
4) Furnish my DPC score in the interviews conducted in 2003, 2004,2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 & 2009 Please note that I am only requesting for the pre-suitability marks which are collected by HR department which are not confidential information. But I am requesting for my DPC marks which a confidential matter but I am entitled to know as per many judgments.
5) Furnish me a copy of promotion policy for GM to ED during 2010 to 2013 with the marks fixed to different criteria's like performance score deduced from eMAP score, Qualification, experience etc and the marks in the hands of DPC. Also the copy of synopsis to be prepared by HR for the use of DPC for the evaluation.
6) Kindly furnish the marks scored by the officers promoted to ED cadre in BHEL Corporation from 2010 to 2013 under different criteria's which totals to pre- suitability marks. The requirement is tabulated form. Mention my name in Sl No 1 and others as promoted officer 1, 2, 3 - - -in order of their ranking of promotion without mentioning their names. Please mention separately the two lists of orders released in 2013. lf any criterion is not applicable replace it by the right one. ln the same way the details to be furnished in the above format for 2012 and 2013.
7) How many officers scored pre-suitability marks less than me were promoted as ED in 2 BHEL Corporation? Only numbers during the years 2011, 2012 and 2013.
8) Furnish my DPC score for the years 2011, 2012 and 2013. Please note that I am only requesting for the pre-suitability marks which are collected by HR department which are not confidential information. But I am requesting for my DPC marks which a confidential matter but I am entitled to know as per many judgments.
9) Copy of complaint received by BHEL which resulted in issuing charge sheet to me on the last day of my service 2411212013.
10) Copy of the preliminary report submitted under letter No AA:VAS:2853 dated 0511A2013 to CVC Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.12.2020.
Subsequently, the CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 16.12.2020 stating as follows:-
"Reply 1: Promotions from AGM to GM are governed by due approval from competent authority (CMD). The policy criteria for evaluation is 10 marks for experience, 20 marks for qualification, 50 marks for ACR scores and 20 marks for DPC (comprising an interview wherein candidates are called as per the prescribed eligibility period). For promotion from AGM to GM, committees of two Functional Directors, one SC/ ST representative and the concerned Unit Head interview respective candidates. The recommendations of the committees is then considered by the DPC comprising of CMD and Functional Directors. The copy of synopsis contains the name and details of other employees as well and therefore, cannot be provided to third party as it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)
(j).
Reply 2 & 6. Information sought is not available in the desired format. As such, collation of data would disproportionately divert the resources of the Company. Hence, Section 7(9) of the RTI Ad, 2005 is invoked. Reply 3 & 7: The requisite information is not available in compiled form. Further, compiling the required information will divert disproportionately the resources of the Company. Hence, Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005 is invoked.
3Reply 4. The information sought by the applicant is very old and is not readily available. Compiling the required information will divert disproportionately the resources of the Company, Hence, Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005 is invoked.
Reply 5: Promotions from GM to ED are governed by due approval from competent authority (CMD). The policy criteria for evaluation is 10 marks for experience, 60 marks for ACR scores and 30 marks for DPC (comprising an Interview wherein candidates are called as per the prescribed eligibility period). For promotion from GM to ED, committee comprises of CMD and all Functional Directors, one SC/ ST representative, one Director representing administrative Ministry, and a non-official Director. The copy of synopsis contains the name and details of other employees as well and therefore, cannot be provided to third party as it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1) (j).
Reply to 8 : DPC score for the year 2012 (held in Dec.) in case of Shri S Ashokan is 20 marks out of 30 and in 2013 (held in April) is 11 marks out of
30. Shri Ashokan was not eligible in 2011 and hence, not considered. Reply 9 and 10) The "Central Information Commission" has held in the case of Sh. Manoj Arya vs CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat that "information about the complaints made against an officer of the Government and any possible action the authorities might have taken on those complaints, qualifies as "personal information" within the meaning of provision of section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act,2005." The document sought is a composite document containing the role of other officials (Third Party) also, disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of other officials, hence Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act,2005 is invoked and the documents cannot be provided."
In regard to his first appeal, FAA's order dated 23.02.2021 held as under:-
"Reply 1: The copies of synopsis in respect of Shri S Ashokan are enclosed herewith with this reply from the year 2004 to 2009. The copy of complete synopsis contains the name of other employees as well and therefore cannot be provided to third party as it is exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1)(j). Therefore, only the relevant information is enclosed. Reply 2 & 6; The information is not available in the desired format. Further the information sought by the appellant is in new format which amount to seeking new information by the appellant and it is not permissible to 4 change the desired format at appeal stage in the same RTI. Hence, the information cannot be provided.
Reply 3 & 7: The information sought by the appellant couldn't be provided as the information falls under Section 7 (9).
Reply 4: The data sought is very old and is not readily available. So it couldn't be provided as the information falls under Section 7 (9).
Reply 5: The copies of synopsis in respect of Shri S Ashokan are placed enclosed with this reply for the year Dec 2012 and April 2013. The copy of complete synopsis contains the name of other employees as well and therefore cannot be provided to third party as it is exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1)(j).
Reply to 8: Information requested in RTI has already been shared. The applicant is seeking new information in his Appeal which cannot be entertained in view of the explanation given under point 2 & 6. Reply to 9 & 10: The information sought is containing name & information of other individuals and would cause unnecessary invasion of the privacy to other individual except the appellant, hence, the information is denied under Section 8(1)(j) and disclosure of it has no relationship to any public activity or interest."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: Shilpi Sikka, Dy. Manager (Law) & CPIO present through audio- conference.
The Appellant expressed his dissatisfaction with the CPIO's reply and stated that his written submission dated 07.04.2022 may be considered while examining the objections raised by him against the CPIO's response to each point of the instant RTI Application.
The CPIO submitted that a point wise reply along with relevant information concerning Appellant has already been provided to him. She further apprised the Commission that the Appellant is a habitual RTI Applicant who has filed multiple 5 RTI Applications seeking information pertaining to old documents of 2011- 2014, records of which as on date are not available in their office. However, the fact remains that in the spirit of RTI Act, all his RTI Applications were duly replied to on each occasion coupled with relevant available information.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of facts on record finds no infirmity in the replies provided by the CPIO as the same adequately suffices the enormous level of information sought by the Appellant through instant RTI Application as per the provisions of RTI Act.
It is also pertinent to note that the queries raised by the Appellant in the instant RTI Application are majorly in the form of seeking personal information of other officers which stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. In this regard, attention of the Appellant/Complainant is a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner &Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India &Anr., (2013) 14 SCC
794.The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."6
However, considering the enormity of the information sought for and to allay the apprehension of the Appellant, the CPIO is directed to offer an inspection of the relevant and available records related to the instant RTI Application to the Appellant on a mutually decided date and time. The intimation of the date & time of inspection will be provided to the Appellant telephonically and in writing by the CPIO. Copy of documents, as identified and desired by the Appellant shall be provided free of cost upto 50 pages and thereafter upon receipt of RTI fees as per RTI Rules, 2012 be provided by the CPIO. During inspection, the CPIO is at liberty to redact the relevant records of third party's disclosure of which stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.
The aforesaid direction should be complied with by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and a compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the CPIO stipulating the details of the inspection provided and copy of the documents provided thereof.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7