Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Shri Uttam Chand. vs Ministry Of Railway on 17 June, 2009

                       CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                  Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001042/OP dated 9-5-2008
                      Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19


               Complainant : Shri Uttam Chand.

               Respondent : Ministry of Railway


Background:

1. The Appellant Shri Uttam Chand vide his RTI application dated 3.12.2008 has asked for the following information:

i) Authenticated copy of Promotion of Departmental Promotion Committee held for selection of Additional Member (Civil Engg) and additional Member (Works) during the last year and current year over looking his promotion to additional Member (Civil Engg) and additional Member (Works), Railway Board.
ii) Whether his Annual Confidence Report for 2007-2008 was considered by DPC or not for empanelment as additional Member (works), Railway Board. If not, copy of the recorded reasons be furnished.
iii) Authenticated Xerox copies of his Annual Confidence Report clearly indicating grading given by reporting/reviewing and Accepting Authorities, in his favour may be furnished for the last 15 years right from 1993-94 onwards indicating names above authorities.
iv) The recorded reasons thereof as to why even two line reply has not been given by railway board
v) Why there is violation of department of personnel's circular in Railway Board's office and cases are not put up to Hon'ble Minister of Railways even after demanded by the undersigned in his representation dt. 8.10.07?

2. The PIO vide reply dated 6.1.08 stated that relevant information which was received from the Directorate(s) concerned has been provided to Appellant.

3. The PIO decision was challenged and appeal was made to First Appellate Authority on 28.1.09 where the Appellant expressed his dissatisfaction with PIO's reply

4. The First Appellate Authority in its reply dt. 17.2.09 found that the grounds of appeal do not have any merit and the reply of the ministry already sent was considered to be adequate. The Appellant filed his second appeal with the CIC on 27.4.09.

2. The Bench of Mrs. Omita Paul, Information Commissioner, heard the matter on 17.

06. 2009.

3. Mr. Shivdan Singh, JS(G) & CPIO, Mr. M.D. Pillai, Dir (Estt.),MR. P.S.Parida, US(A)III, and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, SO/RTI represented the Respondents

4. The Appellant Mr. Uttam Chand was present in person.

 

DECISION The Commission heard both the parties.

The Respondent in his submission submitted that after DOPT guidelines they are complying with directions and showing ACRs and reports, but as far as previous ACRs are concerned they are not being shown as the directions of DOPT are being implemented prospectively.

It is hereby held that the Appellant has the right to examine his own ACRs as the whole objective of RTI Act, 2005 is to bring fairness, transparency and accountability in public administration. If a person has been superseded or denied promotion, the only way he can make representation before the appropriate authorities is by examining his own ACRs. Similar view was held by the full bench of Hon'ble CIC in Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00422.

The Commission however is of the view that it is not necessary for the Respondent to provide the Appellant with a photocopy or certified copy of the ACRs. Therefore, the Commission hereby directs the Respondent to allow the Appellant to inspect and examine only his own ACRs after applying the severability clause if necessary under section 10 of RTI Act,2005 to protect the interest of third party for the period which was considered for his promotion as well as the minutes of the DPC held for the selection of Additional Member (Civil Engineering) and Additional Member (Works) during the year 2007 and 2008 where the Appellant was overlooked for promotion with a period of four weeks at a mutually convenient date and time.

The Respondent was asked to make written submission for delay in providing the information to the Appellant to enable the Commission to take a view on taking further action under Section 20 of The RTI Act, 2005.

Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.

(Omita Paul) Information Commissioner 17.6.09 Authenticated true copy.

(Dhirendra Kumar) Under Secretary & A.R 17-6-2009 Copy to:

1. Shri. Uttam Chand.

New Station Building, First Floor, Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020

2. Sh. Shivdan Singh, JS(G) & Chief Public Information Officer - II Ministry of Railway, Rail Board, New Delhi - 110001.

3. The First Appellate Authority Ministry of Railway, Rail Board, New Delhi - 110001 4  Officer-in-Charge, NIC

5. Press E Group, CIC