Central Information Commission
Shri Ram Kishan vs Ministry Of Urban Development on 19 December, 2008
428 615 616 RamKishanMUD1912 1 2 3 1
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.308, B wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00428
Appellant: Shri Ram Kishan
Public Authority: Ministry of Urban Development
(through S/Shri A.K. Ralhan, Assistant
Controller of Accounts &
V.P. Gogia, Senior Accounts Officer)
Date of Hearing: 19/12/2008
Date of Decision 19/12/2008
FACTS:-
By his letter of 22/10/2007, the Appellant had requested for certified copies of leave applications dated 19/02/2001, 08/05/2001 and 09/02/2001 of Shri F.C. Sharma, retired senior Accountant, who was earlier working in the Office of PAO (FZ), IP Bhawan, New Delhi. CPIO had denied this information in terms of section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act by his letter dated 22/11/2007. On Appeal having been filed, Appellate Authority, vide letter dated 24/01/2008, had not passed a clear order in the matter.
2. The present appeal has been filed against the order of the CPIO and the Appellate Authority.
3. The matter was heard on 19/12/2008. The Appellant appeared before the Commission. The Public Authority is represented by the officers named above. It is the submission of the Applicant that he needs certified copies of the above mentioned leave applications bolster his case pending in a court of law and also to see whether discriminatory treatment has been given to him in service matters when he and Shri F.C. Sharma stood on the same footing. The denial of information u/s 8(1)(j) cannot be said to be justified in the matter in hand. The proper course of action would have been to issue a notice to Shri S.P. Sharma u/s 11 of the RTI Act and then to decide the matter. But this procedure has not been followed.
DECISION
4. Be as it may, the Appellant has made out a case for disclosure of information which does not appear to be exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In view of the above, CPIO is directed to furnish certified copies of the leave applications of Shri F.C. Sharma mentioned above in four weeks time.
5. The Appeal is allowed.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma) Central 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.
(K.L. Das) Assistant Registrar Tele: 011-2616 26 62 Tele: 011 2671 73 53 428 615 616 RamKishanMUD1912 1 2 3 2 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Room No.308, B wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066 Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00615 Appellant: Shri Ram Kishan Public Authority: Ministry of Urban Development (through S/Shri A.K. Ralhan, Assistant Controller of Accounts & V.P. Gogia, Senior Accounts Officer) Date of Hearing: 19/12/2008 Date of Decision 19/12/2008 FACTS:-
1. The Appellant vide his letter dated 24/12/2007, had requested for the following information
(a) certified copies of his ACRs for the years 2000-01 to 2005-06; and
(b) certified copies of the DPC proceedings for the relevant year when his ACP was denied.
2. The PIO, vide his letter dated 30/01/2008, had informed the Appellant that his ACP was not recommended by DPC due to adverse entries in his ACRs. The Appellate Authority vide Office Memorandum dated 10/03/2008 had upheld the decision of CPIO.
The order of the Appellate Authority is not available in the Commission's file. Hence, the present Appeal.
3. The matter was heard on 19/12/2008. The Appellant appeared before the Commission. The Public Authority is represented by the officers named above.
4. As regards the point at (a) above, it may be apt to advert to the supreme Court ruling dated 12/05/2008 passed in Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India & Ors (2008(7)SCALE), wherein it has been held that all ACRs other than 'outstanding' ones are liable to be disclosed to the employee concerned. In view of this ruling, the ACRs of the Appellant are disclosable. The CPIO is, therefore, ordered to give certified copies of the above mentioned ACRs in four weeks time.
5. As regards the point at (b) above, this Commission has held in several of its decisions viz. (i) Gopal Kumar Vs. Army HQs; Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00069; Decision dated 13.07.2006, (ii) S.K. Sarangi Vs. CBEC; Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00470; Decision dated 09.01.2007 and (iii) B.L. Sinha Vs. Ministry of Company Affairs; Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2007/00256; Decision dated 03.05.2007; that the DPC proceedings should be disclosed to an Applicant who might ask for the same. However, there is a proviso in these decisions in as much as while disclosing the DPC proceedings such elements which would disclose evaluation by either the members of the DPC or other officers in respect of candidates whose cases might be considered by the DPC, should be severed from the body of the proceedings in terms of section 10(1) of the RTI Act.
428 615 616 RamKishanMUD1912 1 2 3 3DECISION
6. In view of the above, it is hereby decided that the DPC proceedings/minutes should be disclosed to the Appellant within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order after applying the severability provisions, wherever necessary.
7. The matter is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma) Central 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.
(K.L. Das) Assistant Registrar Tele: 011-2616 26 62 Tele: 011 2671 73 53 428 615 616 RamKishanMUD1912 1 2 3 4 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Room No.308, B wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066 Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00616 Appellant: Shri Ram Kishan Public Authority: Ministry of Urban Development (through S/Shri A.K. Ralhan, Assistant Controller of Accounts & V.P. Go gia, Senior Accounts Officer) Date of Hearing: 19/12/2008 Date of Decision 19/12/2008 FACTS:-
The Appellant vide his letter dated 24/10/2007, had requested for Annual Confidential Reports of Smt. Shashi Prabha, Senior Accountant, who is working in PAO (FZ), for the last 10 years. PIO had denied information in terms of section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act vide his letter dated 17/12/2007. The Appellant had filed an Appeal by his letter dated 16/01/2008. Shri A.K. Ralhan conveyed the decision of the Appellate Authority vide his letter dated 10/03/2008, upholding the decision of the CPIO.
2. The present Appeal has been filed against the order of the Appellate Authroity.
3. The matter was heard on 19/12/2008. The Appellant appeared before the Commission. The Public Authority is represented by the officers named above. At the outset, I must mention that the Appellant has asked for information which involves third party, i.e., Smt. Shashi Prabha. The proper course of action would have been to follow the procedure prescribed in section 11 of the RTI Act which has not been done in this case. Further, I would like to observe that Shri Ralhan has conveyed the decision of the Appellate Authority (Shri J.P.S. Chawla, Chief Controller of Accounts), which is not in conformity with the provisions of the RTI Act. The Appellate Authority's order is required to be signed only by Appellate Authority himself and by no one else. This needs to be noted for future.
DECISION
4. In view of the above, the case is remanded to Shri A.K. Ralhan, Assistant Controller of Accounts (CPIO) with the directions that he may follow the procedure as prescribed in section 11 of the RTI Act and pass an appropriate order.
5. The matter is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma) Central 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.
(K.L. Das) Assistant Registrar Tele: 011-2616 26 62 Tele: 011 2671 73 53