Central Information Commission
Madhav Kumar vs Iim Bodhgaya on 25 March, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: Nine Matters.
(1) CIC/IIMBG/A/2025/119817
(2) CIC/IIMBG/A/2025/117513
(3) CIC/IIMBG/A/2025/122749
(4) CIC/IIMBG/A/2025/117448
(5) CIC/IIMBG/A/2025/619062
(6) CIC/IIMBG/A/2025/117679
(7) CIC/IIMBG/A/2025/117485
(8) CIC/IIMBG/A/2025/619122
(9) CIC/IIMBG/A/2025/123002
MADHAV KUMAR .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
THE CPIO
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT,
BODH GAYA, RTI CELL,
URUVELA PRABANDH VIHAR,
BODHGAYA, GAYA, BIHAR824234 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23.03.2026
Date of Decision : 23.03.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
Note - The above-mentioned Second Appeals have been clubbed together
for disposal through common order as the parties are common and the RTI
applications in question are identical in nature.
(1) CIC/IIMBG/A/2025/119817
(2) CIC/IIMBG/A/2025/117513
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Page 1 of 18
RTI application filed on : 10.01.2025
CPIO replied on : NA
First appeal filed on : 03.03.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : NA
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil.
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.01.2025 seeking the following information:
"Under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, I request to you please provide the following informations regarding the policies, procedures and specific actions related to the termination or dispensation of service of employees during or after the probation period based on poor performance appraisal reports in Central Government/ Centre Government Autonomous Bodies.
1. Whether the Indian Institute of Management (IIM) has a policy for terminating or dispensing with the services of an employee during or after the probation period on the grounds of poor performance in the ASPAR. Can Central Government employee regular employment of Group C staff be terminated on the basis of the Annual Appraisal Performance Report after probation period and during probation period? Please provide a copy of the rules and guidelines governing the termination of employees in Central Government / Central Government Autonomous Bodies during or after the probation period, including those specified under CCS Rules, DoPT guidelines, and any institution-specific HR policy. What is the process for evaluating probationers' performance under these rules?
B. If such a policy exists, kindly provide the detailed guidelines and criteria that are followed to evaluate an employee's performance during the probation period and the procedure for termination or dispensation from employment based on the appraisal outcome. Whether Probationary report is mandatory or not for the confirmation or termination of service after completion of probation period or during probation period ? What is the procedure for preparing and finalizing Performance Appraisal Reports? What safeguards are in place to ensure transparency and fairness in the appraisal process? Is there any provision for employees to respond to adverse remarks or appeal against the ratings? Please provide copies of relevant rules or circulars.Page 2 of 18
B. What is the purpose of the Annual performance Appraisal report for central government employees? Please provide the number of employees who have been terminated or dispensed with during or after their probation period since year 2020-2024, on the basis of poor performance in ASPAR, in the past. Before initiating termination based on poor appraisal scores, is a formal inquiry mandatory? If yes, please share details of the inquiry process and timeline. How much time must be provided to employees for responding to adverse remarks or show-cause notices under the CCS Rules or other applicable regulations?
4. What safeguards or mechanisms are in place to ensure fairness, transparency, and due process in cases of termination or dispensation from employment based on performance appraisals? Can the ratings in the Annual performance Appraisal report be rated on one to five scale or one to ten scale only ? Are employees entitled for an extension of the probation period in cases of unsatisfactory performance before considering termination? Please provide the relevant guidelines.
5. what is the duration of probation period for group C staff whose upper age limit in advertisement is 40 and no induction training is involved after recruitment? Whether employees who are terminated or dispensed from service must be given a reasonable opportunity to contest the performance appraisal and to present their case before the termination decision is made? Has there been any instance in the past five years where an employee was terminated or dismissed during/after the probation period solely based on poor performance appraisal reports? Please provide details, anonymized if necessary, including the timeline, inquiry reports, and competent authority's decisions. Are all such cases required to be approved by a committee or a competent authority? Please, provide details of the process.
6. Whether induction training is mandatory or not for all centre government employees? Please provide copies of any internal communications, memos served related to the termination or dispensation process, specifically addressing the use of performance appraisals in such decisions. How are principles of natural justice, as outlined in Article 311 of the Indian Constitution, upheld in cases of termination based on performance appraisal reports?Page 3 of 18
7. what are the right of probationary during probation period of the centre government employees? A detailed explanation of the role of the Competent Authority responsible for approving or rejecting termination decisions based on performance appraisals. Details of the role of the Performance Appraisal Committee (PAC) in the appraisal and termination process. List of all communications, including office memoranda, related to the drafting, submission, or revisions of ASPARS from 01.04.2024 to 16.10.2024.
8 Whether termination order can be passed by an authority who are not the appointing authority?
9 What are the mandatory time lines of the Annual performance Appraisal report which must be followed?
10 Can any Officer who are not Reporting Office can fill or make entry in the Annual Performance Appraisal report?
11 Can multiple or two Annual performance Appraisal report be filled in the same Financial year in case of single the Reporting Officer for whole period?
12 What is the minimum cooling period or time period for starting new Annual Performance Appraisal report after one APAR and minimum period of during required to be supervised by the Reporting Office for the Centre government employees and the adverse remarks in APAR be must be disclosed by the Reporting Office before the finalization of APAR?
13 what is purpose of Secret dairy whether it can be disclosed to the employee or not?
14 Can HRA is granted to the Government employees who are not provided staff accommodation and no allotment order issued for the Residential 4nonymized4on?
15 Can HRA of Central Government employee be deducted for student hostel where no license fee charged and no official allotment letter provided ?
16 What is the definition of staff hostel and student hostel for batchelor 4nonymized4on which makes the deduction of HRA lawful?Page 4 of 18
17 Whether the license fee deduction is mandatory for staff hostel and student hostel accommodation meant for bachelor staff or not?
18 Can Staff Hostel be correlated with student hostels under House Allotment Rules for the Centre Government employees ?
19 Also provide the detailed information regarding the conditions for admissibility and drawal of HRA for central government employees with reference to above soughed information in public interest and making mor clarity and transparency for central government employees ?
20 what basis has been applied in my case for granting of ratings in ASPAR from 01.04.2023 to 31.03.2024 and 01.04.2024 to 07.10.2024?
21 Whether there have been any complaint regarding my functioning as the Hostel Supervisor from the students, if yes! Kindly provide me the certified copy of the same.
22 Kindly furnish me the certified copy of the report of Food Safety Officer dated 21.08.2023 and dated 05.09.2023 related to the Indian Institute of Management Bodh Gaya Centre Mess Inspection. Also, provide the certified copy of the seizer list based upon the subsequent reported dated 21.08.2023 & 05.09.2023 has been prepared.
23 And in this concern, © may also be supplied the copy of the Complaint report of the concerned laboratory based on you have reported as to the adulteration and perfection of the quality of food in the report dated 21.08.2023 and 05.09.2023."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 25.02.2025 stating as under:
"Reply:- This is to inform you that the institute follows the policies and procedures outlined in the HR Policy and Service Rules of IIM Bodh Gaya."
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.03.2025. The FAA order is not on record.
Page 5 of 184. Aggrieved by the non-disposal of First Appeal, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeals.
(3) CIC/IIMBG/A/2025/122749 (4) CIC/IIMBG/A/2025/117448 (5) CIC/IIMBG/A/2025/619062 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17.01.2025 CPIO replied on : 17.02.2025 First appeal filed on : 18.02.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : 04.03.2025 2nd Appeal dated : 01.07.2025 Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.01.2025 seeking the following information:
"Under the provisions of the Right to Information Act 2005 I request the following information about the policies, procedures and specific actions taken in relation to termination or relaxation of employees during or after the probation period on the basis of poor performance appraisal reports in the autonomous bodies of the Central Government:
B. Guidelines and Rules:
B) Please provide a copy of the rules and guidelines governing termination of employees during or after the probation period in autonomous bodies of the Central Government including rules and guidelines specified under CCS Rules, DoPT Guidelines and any institution-specific HR policy.
B) What is the procedure for evaluating the performance of probationers under these regulations?
B. Performance Appraisal Report (PAR/ASPAR):
B) What is the process for preparing and finalizing the performance appraisal report?
B)What safeguards are in place to ensure transparency and fairness in the assessment process?Page 6 of 18
C) Is there any provision for employees to respond to adverse comments or appeal against ratings? Please provide copies of relevant rules or circulars.
B. Check and Termination Process:
B) Is a formal investigation mandatory before initiating a termination based on a poor evaluation score? If yes, please share details of the investigation process and timelines.
B) How much time should be given to the employees to respond to adverse remarks or show cause notices under CCS (CCA) Rules or other applicable regulations?
4. Probation Period Extension: Are employees entitled to an extension of the probation period before dismissal is considered in cases of unsatisfactory performance? Please provide relevant guidelines.
5. Specific Cases:
B) Has there been any case in the last five years where an employee was dismissed or terminated during/after the probation period solely on the basis of a poor performance appraisal report? Please provide details including time-bound investigation reports and decisions of the competent authority, 7nonymized if necessary.
B) Do all such cases need to be approved by a committee or competent authority? Provide details of the process.
6. Constitutional safeguards: How are the principles of natural justice enshrined in Article 311 of the Indian Constitution upheld in cases of dismissal on the basis of performance appraisal report?
7. Other:
B) Description of the role of the Performance Appraisal Committee (PAC) in the appraisal and termination process.
B) list of all communications, including office memoranda, relating to the drafting, submission, or amendment of ASPAR from 01.04.2023 to 31.03.204 and 01.04.2024 to 07.10.2024 Page 7 of 18 If the information relates to any other public authority please transfer my application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 17.02.2025 stating as under:
Query no. Reply
1(a) This is as per the provision of IIM Bodh Gaya HR Policy and
Service Rules available on the institute's website. (Link:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MtBsW-loXzO- zaGBq5DGPcMJ2wpH2C3s/view) 1(b) Please refer to the reply of Para No 1(A) above. 2(a) Please refer to the reply of Para No 1(A) above. 2(b) The Final ASPAR Score is reviewed by the Performance Appraisal Committee.
2© Yes for details please refer HR Policy and Service Rules of IIM
Bodh Gaya
3(a) No, in case of Probationer
3(b) Not specified for Probationers
4 At the discretion of the competent authority
5(a) Yes, one case on the basis of poor performance appraisal report
and investigation not warranted for probationers. 5(b) Yes, approved by the competent authority. 6 The referred Article 311 not relevant to probationers of Central Autonomous Bodies.
7(a) Please refer to the institute of HR policy and Service Rules. 7(b) The format of ASPAR is available in the HR Policy and Service Rules of IIM Bodh Gaya which is available in the institute's website and no record of drafting, submission or amendments of ASPAR for the requested period is available.
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.02.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 04.03.2025, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
4. Challenging the FAA's order, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeals.
(6) CIC/IIMBG/A/2025/117679 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 07.01.2025
CPIO replied on : NA
Page 8 of 18
First appeal filed on : 04.03.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : NA
2nd Appeal dated : 25.04.2025
Information sought:
5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.01.2025 seeking the following information:
"Wish to seek information under the RTI Act, 2005:
सूचना के अिधकार अिधिनयम 2005 के ावधान के तहत म क सरकार के वाय िनकाय म खराब दशन मू यांकन रपोट के आधार पर प रवी ा अविध के दौरान या उसके बाद कमचा रय क समाि या छू ट से संबंिधत नीितय या और िविश कारवाइय के बारे म िन िलिखत जानकारी का अनुरोध करता :ं
1. ** दशािनदश और िनयम: **
- कृ पया क सरकार के वाय िनकाय म प रवी ा अविध के दौरान या उसके बाद कमचा रय क समाि को िनयंि त करने वाले िनयम और दशािनदश क एक ित दान कर िजसम CCS िनयम DOPT दशािनदश और कसी भी सं थान-िविश HR नीित के तहत िन द िनयम और दशािनदश शािमल ह।
- इन िनयम के तहत प रवी ा थय के दशन का मू यांकन करने क या या है?
2. ** दशन मू यांकन रपोट (PAR/ASPAR): ** -
- दशन मू यांकन रपोट तैयार करने और उसे अंितम प देने क या या है?
- मू यांकन या म पारद शता और िन प ता सुिनि त करने के िलए या सुर ा उपाय कए गए ह?
- या कमचा रय के िलए ितकू ल ट पिणय का जवाब देने या रे टंग के िखलाफ अपील करने का कोई ावधान है? कृ पया ासंिगक िनयम या प रप क ितयां दान कर।
3. ** जांच और समाि या: **
- खराब मू यांकन कोर के आधार पर समाि शु करने से पहले या औपचा रक जांच अिनवाय है? य द हो तो कृ पया जांच या और समयसीमा का िववरण साझा कर।
- सीसीएस (सीसीए) िनयम या अ य लागू िविनयम के तहत ितकू ल ट पिणय या कारण बताओ नो टस का जवाब देने के िलए कमचा रय को कतना समय दया जाना चािहए? 4. ** प रवी ा अविध िव तारः ** Page 9 of 18
- या कमचारी असंतोषजनक दशन के मामल म बखा तगी पर िवचार करने से पहले प रवी ा अविध के िव तार के हकदार ह? कृ पया ासंिगक दशािनदश दान कर।
5. ** िविश मामले:**
- या िपछले पाँच वष म ऐसा कोई मामला आ है जहाँ कसी कमचारी को के वल खराब दशन मू यांकन रपोट के आधार पर प रवी ा अविध के दौरान बाद म बखा त या बखा त कया गया हो? कृ पया समय-सीमा जाँच रपोट और स म ािधकारी के िनणय सिहत िववरण दान कर य द आव यक हो तो गुमनाम रख।
- या ऐसे सभी मामल को कसी सिमित या स म ािधकारी ारा अनुमो दत कया जाना आव यक है? या का िववरण दान कर।
6. ** संवैधािनक सुर ा उपाय: **
-भारतीय संिवधान के अनु छेद 311 म उि लिखत ाकृ ितक याय के िस ांत को दशन मू यांकन रपोट के आधार पर बखा तगी के मामल म कै से बरकरार रखा जाता है?
7. **अ य:**
- मू यांकन और समाि या म दशन मू यांकन सिमित (PAC) क भूिमका का िववरण।
- [आपके मामले से संबंिधत िविश ितिथय ] से ASPARS के ा पण तुितकरण या संशोधन से संबंिधत कायालय ापन सिहत सभी संचार क सूची।
य द जानकारी कसी अ य सावजिनक ािधकरण से संबंिधत है तो कृ पया मेरे आवेदन को आरटीआई अिधिनयम क धारा 6(3) के तहत थानांत रत कर।"
6. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.03.2025. The FAA order is not on record.
7. Aggrieved by the non-disposal of First Appeal, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(7) CIC/IIMBG/A/2025/117485 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 23.03.2025
CPIO replied on : 08.04.2025
First appeal filed on : Nil
First Appellate Authority's order : NA
2nd Appeal dated : 22.05.2025
Page 10 of 18
Information sought:
8. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.03.2025 seeking the following information:
"Under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, I hereby seek the following information pertaining to the termination/ dispensation of services of employees during or after probation in Central Government Autonomous Bodies, specifically at India Institute of Management as per the enclosed RTI Application under the RTI Act."
9. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 08.04.2025 stating as under:
"Reply: This is to inform you that the institute follows the policies and procedures outlined in the Annexure XVII of the IIM Bodh Gaya HR Policy and Service Rules. The HR Policy can be easily accessed through the link-https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MtBsW-loXzO- zaGBq5DGPcMJ2wpH2C3s/view"
10. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated Nil. The FAA order is not on record.
11. Aggrieved by the non-disposal of First Appeal, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(8) CIC/IIMBG/A/2025/619122 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17.01.2025 CPIO replied on : 17.02.2025 First appeal filed on : 18.02.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : 04.03.2025 2nd Appeal dated : Nil Information sought:
12. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.01.2025 seeking the following information:
"Under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, I request to you please provide the informations as per the enclosed copy of RTI Application regarding the policies, Page 11 of 18 Procedures and specific actions related to the termination or dispensation of service of employees during or after the probation period based on poor performance appraisal reports in Centre Government Autonomous Bodies."
13. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 17.02.2025 stating as under:
"Reply: IIM Bodh Gaya follows the procedures laid down in the HR policy and service rules with respect to performance appraisal and termination or dispensation of service of employees there under."
14. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.02.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 04.03.2025, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
15. Challenging the FAA's order, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(9) CIC/IIMBG/A/2025/123002 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.05.2025 CPIO replied on : NA First appeal filed on : 20.06.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : 02.07.2025 2nd Appeal dated : 04.07.2025 Information sought:
16. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.05.2025 seeking the following information:
"I, Madhav Kumar, a citizen of India, hereby seek the following information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, to address procedural irregularities and procedural violations in my Annual Staff Performance Appraisal Report (ASPAR) and the subsequent Show-Cause Notice dated 14.10.2024 issued against me (Ref. No. IIMBG/CAO/02/2024-25/2523 dated 14.10.2024).
Particulars of Information Required
1. Provide the Certified Copies of documents which has led to my termination as per the IIM HR Policy/ CCS Rules.
2. Provide the Certified copy of the IIM Bodh Gaya HR Policy governing the ASPAR timelines and specific Rule on biennial evaluation.Page 12 of 18
3. Please provide the copy of termination order of Shri Madhav Kumar, Hostel Supervisor which has been approved by BOG of the IIM Bodh Gaya.
4. Provide the certified copies of IIM Bodh Gaya HR policy and CCS Rules related to the termination of regular employees.
5. Please provide the certified copy of IIM Bodh Gaya Rules, policy regarding the termination, extension and confirmation of regular employees.
6. Please provide the certified copy of IIM Bodh Gaya HR Policy/ CCS Service Rule which permits termination of regular employee within 48 Hours of the issuance of the Show-Cause Notice.
7. Please provide the copy of IIM Bodh Gaya HR policy or copy of rule for non-payment of HRA and Additional Pay allowances in case of Shri Madhav Kumar, Hostel Supervisor.
8. Provide the certified copy of performance evaluation sheet submitted by all the Reporting Officers who has awarded very good and Good ratings in the ASPAR report of F.Y. 2023-24.
9. Provide the Certified copy of the final ASPAR whose ratings were taken into account for taking the decision for the termination of Shri Madhav Kumar, Hostel Supervisor as per the IIM Bodh Gaya HR Policy.
10. Provide the Certified copy of the HR Policy clause permitting PAC for the finalizing the Appraise self assesment and ratings awarded by reporting, reviewing and accepting authorities of IIM Bodh Gaya."
17. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.06.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 02.07.2025, stating as under-
"The Institute has already responded to 09 RTI applications, 03 RTI appeals, 29 CPGRAMS grievances, and numerous email representations- most of which are repetitive in nature and pertain to the same set of facts and issues.
The handling of these repeated representations has imposed a significant administrative burden, diverting critical resources, time, and manpower away from essential academic and administrative functions. The Page 13 of 18 excessive volume and redundant nature of these communications is adversely affecting the Institute's ability to perform its core duties effectively.
It appears that the RTI mechanism is being repeatedly invoked in a manner that suggests personal grievance rather than genuine public interest. The repeated references to the same matter-relating to service- related issues following administrative action based on below performance during probation-raise concerns about potential misuse of the RTI framework as a tool for personal vindication.
1. Section 6(1) of the RTI Act provides the right to seek information. However, it must be exercised reasonably and not abused. The Supreme Court of India "In Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497", has stated that the Act is meant to promote transparency, not to become a tool for harassment or to settle personal scores.
2. In Shail Sahni v. Sanjeev Kumar (2016 SCC OnLine Del 5241), the Delhi High Court observed that repeated RTI queries on the same issue could amount to an abuse of the process and may be denied.
3. Additionally, the Central Information Commission (CIC) in several decisions (e.g., C/C/AD/A/2013/000501-SA) has recognized that harassing, repetitive or vexatious RTI applications can be legitimately declined.
In light of the above, and considering that the matter is sub judice before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Patna, the Institute shall duly comply with any directions of the Hon'ble Court and furnish information as required during the legal proceedings."
18. Challenging the FAA's order, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Shri Madhav Kumar present through video conference. Respondent: Ms. Priyanka Deepak, Sr. Admin. Officer/CPIO present through video conference.
19. Written statement of the Appellant as well as of the CPIO is taken on record.
20. Appellant while narrating the factual background in these matters stated that the main premise of this RTI applications is the alleged arbitrary Page 14 of 18 dispensation of his service by the Respondent Public Authority on the basis of lower grading in his Appraisal Performance Report (APAR) without any basis. In this regard, he filed instant RTI applications, however, he is aggrieved by the fact that complete specific information about basis/reasons for lower grading in APAR was not provided to him so far. Appellant contended that not even the copy of specific Rules regarding HR policy of the IIM Bodh Gaya was furnished by the CPIO. It was the plea of the Appellant that First Appellate Authority has not given any opportunity of hearing while disposing his First Appeals. In the matters where his First Appeals were decided vide File No. CIC/IIMBG/A/2025/122749,CIC/IIMBG/A/2025/117448, CIC/IIMBG/A/2025/619122, CIC/IIMBG/A/2025/619062 and CIC/IIMBG/A/2025/123002, the FAA upholds the decisions of the CPIO without giving any speaking reasoned order. The Appellant has further contended that the appointing authority of the Appellant was the Director and where as his termination order was issued by the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) which is a matter of grievance.
21. CPIO by placing reliance on her written statement dated 18.03.2026 as filed in File No. CIC/IIMBG/A/2025/119817 pleaded that Appellant is a habitual RTI applicant whose core grievance revolved on the issue of termination of his services by IIM Bodh Gaya from the services of hostel supervisor during probation period on his low grading in APAR and the performance was analyzed by the Competent Authority. She stated that to satisfy his grudge, the Appellant has filed multiple representations through emails as well to harass the Respondents. Moreover, a court case was also filed by the Appellant before the Hon'ble High Court of Patna bearing case No. CWJC 8028/2025 which is sub-judice as on date. As regards response to RTI applications in question are concerned, it was the general submission of the CPIO that all RTI applications have been duly replied to the Appellant. Decision
22. Heard the parties.
23. On perusal of the facts placed on record and after hearing both the parties, the Commission noted that the reply of the CPIO in each of the matters is not in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The CPIO is expected to facilitate a copy of entire HR policy and relevant related documents pertaining to Appellant's own APAR and dispensation of service related records, which appears to have not been done in these matters. In the Page 15 of 18 context of disclosure of entry in the employee's own ACR/APAR, the Commission relied on a judgment of 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, had 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 benchmark 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."
24. Moreover, the Commission finds weightage in the plea of the Appellant based on the principle as per Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 that power to appoint to include power to suspend or dismiss, and in the matter under reference the order of termination of service has been issued by an Authority different from that of the Appointing Authority. However, this contention of the Appellant is a legal issue which is not in the purview of the Central Information Commission. Further, as per the contentions raised by the Appellant in the instant Appeals, the FAA passed the impugned orders ignoring all the stated aspects, by simply upholding the decision of CPIO and in most of the instant Second Appeals, his First Appeals were not adjudicated by the FAA till date. Hence, the Appellant prays before the Commission that a fair chance of hearing should be provided to him.
25. In the given facts and circumstances of the instant matters under reference, the Commission finds it just in accordance with principles of natural Page 16 of 18 justice, that a fair and proper hearing be conducted by the First Appellate Authority in each of these matters, by giving the parties due opportunity of being heard, either in person or through virtual hearing, before the FAA. Hence, the present cases are remanded back to the First Appellant Authority for fresh adjudication of each of the First Appeal on merits as per the provisions of the RTI upon providing fair opportunity to both the parties. The First Appeals shall be decided by a reasoned, speaking order on merits within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
26. A compliance report to this effect be filed before the Commission, immediately thereafter. The Commission reminds the CPIO to be cautious in their approach while handling the matters under RTI Act by adhering to the statutory timeframe as provided under the RTI Act, 2005.
27. FAA to ensure compliance of the directions, accordingly. With the above observations/directions, the instant Appeals are disposed of.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi(सुधा रानी रे लग ं ी) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Copy To:
THE FAA, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, BODH GAYA, RTI CELL, URLTVELA PRABANDH VIHA & BODHGAYA, GAYA, BIHAR- 824234 Page 17 of 18 Shri MADHAV KUMAR Page 18 of 18 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)