TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tc. are personal information and the performance of an employee/officer in an organization, commonly known as Annual Confidential Report can be disclosed or not. Thus in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show-cause notices and orders of censure/punishment, etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression “personal information”, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... New Delhi, the 15.10.09 To Shri R. K. Jain 1512-B, Bhishm Pitamah Marg, Wazir Nagar, New Delhi 110003 Subject: Application under RTI Act. Sir, Your RTI application No.RTI/09/2406 dated 7.10.2009 seeks information from File No.27-3/2002 Ad-1-C. The file contains analysis of Annual Confidential Report of Smt. Jyoti Balasundaram only which attracts clause 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act. Therefore the information sought is denied. Yours faithfully, (Victor James) Under Secretary to the Govt. of India 4. On an appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act, the Director (Headquarters) and Appellate Authority by its order dated 18th December, 2009 disallowed the same citing same ground as cited by the CPIO; the relevant portion of which reads as follows: 2. I have gone through the RTI application dated 07.10.2009, wherein the Appellant had requested the following information; A) Copies of all note sheets and correspondence pages of File No. 27/3/2002 Ad. IC relating to Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram. B) Inspection of all records, documents, files and note sheets of File No.27/3/2002 Ad. IC. C) Copies of records pointed out during / after inspection. 3. I have gone throu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... formation should be authorized in public interest. 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. Sarvin Vs. Directorate General of Works (CPWD); Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00422; Date of Decision; 19.02.2009 followed a Supreme Court order in Dev Dutt Vs. UOI (Civil Appeal No. 7631/2002). 7. An examination on fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce about the remarks against integrity in the ACR of the Member. According to him, it was different from asking the copy of the ACR itself. However, we find that the learned Single Judge at the time of hearing ordered for production of the original records and after perusing the same came to the conclusion that the information sought for was not different or distinguished from ACR. The learned Single Judge held that the said file contains correspondence in relation to the remarks recorded by the President of the CESTAT in relation to Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, a Member and also contains the reasons why the said remarks have eventually been dropped. Therefore, recordings made in the said file constitute an integral part of the ACR record of the officer in question. Mr. Bhushan then submitted that ACR of a public servant has a relationship with public activity as he discharges public duties and, therefore, the matter is of a public interest; asking for such information does not amount to any unwarranted invasion in the privacy of public servant. Referring to this Court s decision in the case of State of U.P. vs. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 865, it was submitted that when such informati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity, 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. 13. On the other hand Section 11 deals with third party information and the circumstances when such information can be disclosed and the manner in which it is to be disclosed, if so decided by the Competent Authority. Under Section 11(1), if the information relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by the third party, and if the Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer intends to disclose any such information or record on a request made under the Act, in such case after written notice to the third party of the request, the Officer may disclose the information, if the third party agrees to such request or if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party. Section 11(1) is quoted hereunder: Section 11 - Third party information.- (1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in Arvind Kejriwal vs. Central Public Information Officer reported in AIR 2010 Delhi 216 considered Section 11 of the RTI Act. The Court held that once the information seeker is provided information relating to a third party, it is no longer in the private domain. Such information seeker can then disclose in turn such information to the whole World. Therefore, for providing the information the procedure outlined under Section 11(1) cannot be dispensed with. The following was the observation made by the Delhi High Court in Arvind Kejriwal (supra): 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 s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to a third party, it is no longer in the private domain. Such information seeker can then disclose in 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her the abovementioned information sought for qualifies to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. 12. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show-cause notices and orders of censure/punishment, etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression personal information , the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
