TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e - the learned Single Judge has rightly held that except in cases involving overriding public interest, the ACR record of the officer cannot be disclosed - Since the matter was not looked into by the CIC, the learned Single Judge remitted the case back to the CIC – appeal rejected. - LPA No.22 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 20-4-2012 - MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, A.K. SIKRI, JJ. For Appellant: Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Advocate. For Respondent: Ms. Maneesha Dhir with Ms. Geeta Sharma, Advocates. 1. The appellant is seeking information under Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the RTI Act‟), which has been denied to him by all the Authorities below including the learned Single Judge of this Court. To put it crisply, at this stage itself, the appellant wants information about some adverse entries allegedly made in the Annual Confidential Report of Ms. Jyoti Balasundram, Member/CESTAT by the President of the CESTAT for the year 2000-01 and follow-up action thereupon. The CPIO of CESTAT refused to divulge any information on the ground that it was exempted under Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act. 2. The writ petition filed before the learned S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exceptional circumstances. In the brief order of the CIC, following portion is relevant and is therefore extracted herein: 5. It is not in doubt that the file referred to by the appellant related to the Annual Confidential Record of a third-party, Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram and was specific to substantiation by the Reporting Officer of the comments made in her ACRs about the third-party‟s integrity. Therefore, appellant‟s plea that the matter was about a public servant‟s integrity per se is not valid. The ACR examines all aspects of the performance and the personality of a public servant integrity being one of them. An examination of the aspect of integrity as part of the CR cannot, therefore, be equated with the vigilance enquiry against a public servant. Appellant was in error in equating the two. 6. It has been the consistent position of this Commission that ACR grades can and should be disclosed to the person to whom the ACRs related and not to the third-parties except under exceptional circumstances. Commission‟s decision in P.K. Sarin Vs. Directorate General of Works (CPWD); Appeal No.CIC /WB/A/2007/00422; Date of Decision: 19.02.2009 followed a Sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t information regarding whose information is sought by a public. He referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of UP Vs. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 865 highlighting the purpose and importance of right to information. He further submitted that when such an information can be supplied to the Parliament, it cannot be treated as personal document or private document. Learned counsel referred to the judgment of Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Centre for Earth Sciences Studies Vs. Anson Sebastian, 2010 (2) KLT 233. In that case, the Court opined that disclosure of such an information was not prohibited under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Following discussion in the said judgment was specifically referred: 4. The next question to be considered is whether the information sought by the first respondent relates to personal information of other employees, the disclosure of which is prohibited under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. Here again, we notice that under exceptional circumstances even personal information, disclosure of which is prohibited under the main clause, can be disclosed if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... well. Consequently Writ Appeals are dismissed. 8. Before we appreciate and deal with the aforesaid arguments, it would be necessary to discuss the manner in which the learned Single Judge in his impugned order has dealt with the case while remitting the case back to the CIC. The learned Single Judge has fully relied upon the case of Arvind Kejriwal (supra) and has exhaustively quoted the following passage therefrom: 22. Turning to the case on hand, the documents of which copies are sought are in the personal files of officers working at the levels of Deputy Secretary, Joint Secretary, Director, Additional Secretary and Secretary in the Government of India. Appointments to these posts are made on a comparative assessment of the relative merits of various officers by a departmental promotion committee or a selection committee, as the case may be. The evaluation of the past performance of these officers is contained in the ACRs. On the basis of the comparative assessment a grading is given. Such information cannot but be viewed as personal to such officers. Vis-a-vis a person who is not an employee of the Government of India and is seeking such information as a member of the pub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n turn such information to the whole world. There may be an officer who may not want the whole world to know why he or she was overlooked for promotion. The defence of privacy in such a case cannot be lightly brushed aside saying that since the officer is a public servant he or she cannot possibly fight shy of such disclosure. There may be yet another situation where the officer may have no qualms about such disclosure. And there may be a third category where the credentials of the officer appointed may be thought of as being in public interest to be disclosed. The importance of the post held may also be a factor that might weigh with the information officer. This exercise of weighing the competing interests can possibly be undertaken only after hearing all interested parties. Therefore the procedure under Section 11(1) RTI Act. 26. This Court, therefore, holds that the CIC was not justified in overruling the objection of the UOI on the basis of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act and directing the UOI and the DoPT to provide copies of the documents as sought by Mr. Kejriwal. Whatever may have been the past practice when disclosure was ordered of information contained in the files relat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Section 11 (1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
