Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. It was lastly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is an apparent contradiction in the order passed by the CIC. On one hand, directions have been given to supply copies of the DPC proceedings containing the relative assessment of the officers concerned, and on the other hand, the provisions laid down in Section 11(1) of the Act (third party) have been directed to be complied with for providing copies of ACRs of Shri N Jayaram, Shri O P Kala, and Vijay Kumar. The relative assessment which has been directed to be given to the respondent contains the ACR grading not only of these three officers but also of all the other officers considered by the DPC. If this is disclosed, then the application of Section 11(1) of the Act in relation to supply of ACRs in respect of the aforesaid three officers becomes redundant. Therefore, the self contradictory nature of the orders passed by the CIC renders it incapable of being implemented.

22. So far as the respondent sought the information regarding the Departmental Promotion Committee proceedings („DPC‟ for short) and the minutes of such proceedings this Court is further of the opinion that the same cannot be disclosed except for in public interest. This Court in, „THDC India Ltd.Vs. R.K. Raturi' W.P. (C) 903/2013 decided on 08.07.2014 has observed as under:

"13. Consequently, this Court is of the view that ACR grading/ratings as also the marks given to the candidates based on the said ACR grading/ratings and their interview marks contained in the DPC proceedings can be disclosed only to the concerned employee and not to any other employee as that would constitute third party information. This Court is also of the opinion that third party information can only be disclosed if a finding of a larger public interest being involved is given by CIC and further if third party procedure as prescribed under Sections 11(1) and 19(4) of the RTI Act is followed."

23. In the instant case, the information sought by the respondent pertains to the ACRs of Shri N. Jayaram, O.P. Kala, Vijaykumar who are government servants and the DPC proceedings so conducted. As I have already observed that ACRs of these employees are confidential documents. The reasons provided by the respondent are not convincing enough to establish before this court that disclosure of ACR details of the said three persons and the DPC proceedings is important for larger public interest. Learned counsel for the respondent has established no grounds for the same. Merely because the respondent wants to avail such information, does not form a substantial reason so as to why this Court should allow disclosure of such information. In the absence of any cogent reasons brought on record to establish the necessity of disclosure of the information sought by the respondent in the interest of public this Court is not inclined to violate the right to privacy of the said three public officers which is a Fundamental Right embedded in our Constitution.

24. Perusal of the order dated 28.02.2011, suggests that the learned CIC allowed the disclosure of the DPC proceedings and asked the respondent to give reasons for denial of the ACRs. This court is not in agreement with the observations of the learned CIC for the reasons aforesaid.

25. In the light of the above discussion the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.04.2013 passed by Central Information Commissioner, New Delhi is set aside. No order as to costs.