Central Information Commission
Mrrandolph Rowe vs Small Industries Development Bank Of ... on 11 July, 2014
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/001220/SH
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 11th July 2014
Date of decision : 11th July 2014
Name of the Appellant : Shri Randolph Rowe,
504, Durvankur Cooperative Housing
Society, Citi Comer II, Plot No. 53, Sector
29, Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400 703
Name of the Public Authority : Central Public Information Officer,
Small Industries Development Bank of
India,
SIDBI Tower, 15, Ashok Marg, Lucknow
226001
The Appellant was not present.
On behalf of the Respondents, Shri U. S. Lal, GM (Legal) (CPIO) was present at
the NIC Studio, Lucknow.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 22.4.2013 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on sixteen points regarding disciplinary proceedings against him. He also sought copies of his Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) for the period 2000 to 2013. The CPIO responded on 20.5.2013. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority on 4.6.2013. In his order dated 14.6.2013, the FAA upheld the CPIO's reply. The Appellant approached the CIC in second appeal on 26.7.2013.
2. The Appellant was not present in spite of a written notice having been sent to him. The Respondents reiterated the reply given by the CPIO. We note that a number of queries in the RTI application concerned the first stage and second stage advice from the CVC in connection with the disciplinary proceedings. During the hearing of the matter today, Shri U. S. Lal, GM (Legal) (CPIO), the representative of the Respondents, submitted that the Appellant was dismissed after disciplinary proceedings against him and that first and second stage advice had been obtained in connection with the above proceedings. We drew his attention to the letter dated 20.5.2013 of the CPIO, in which he had stated that the bank had not sought any first or second stage advice from the CVC. At this stage, the representative of the Respondents retracted his earlier statement that first and second stage advice had been obtained. He also stated that copies of the APARs of the Appellant were not given to him in view of certain court cases. In this context, we note the following observations of the Supreme Court in their judgment dated 12.5.2008 in Dev Dutt vs. Union of India & Ors.: "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 noncommunication 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 noncommunication 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.
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."
3. In the light of the foregoing and having considered the records and the submissions of the Respondents before us, we direct the CPIO to provide copies of the Appellant's APARs for the period 2000 to 2013 to him. Further, in view of the contradictory statements made by the representative of the Respondents during the hearing, we also direct the CPIO to state on sworn affidavit to the Appellant that the bank had not sought any first or second stage advice from the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). The CPIO is further directed to complete action on our above directives within twenty days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
4. With the above directions and observations, the appeal is disposed of.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal) 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.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar