Tuesday, September 15, 2020

 

ACRs of employees are confidential documents. Disclosure of ACR details of the persons and the DPC proceedings should be important for larger public interest.

 CIC is not correct in ordering disclosure of ACRs requested.

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P.(C) 4735/2011

 Reserved on: 26th March, 2015        Date of Decision: 30th April,2015

 

Union of India                                                        ..... Petitioner

                     versus

D.S. MEENA                                                            ..... Respondent

 

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.P.VAISH                                 

 

JUDGMENT

The present Writ

This Petition was filed assailing an order dated 28.02.2011 passed by the CIC in appeal No. CIC/AD/A/2009/001513. Through the said order CIC has directed the petitioner (GOI) to show the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of third party to the respondent.

The Background

The respondent (D.S. Meena)  through a request Dated 01.02.2009, requested the petitioner for the following information:

(a) Supply of certified copies of ACRs of three persons- (Shri N. Jayaram, O.P.Kala, Vijaykumar)- IRTS officers, for the previous 5 years which were taken into consideration during promotion of SAG and his ACRs of the same period.

(b) Copy of approved panel in which these three officers were placed.

The petitioner  rejected the request stated that the disclosure does not serve any public interest or public activity and is, therefore, exempted under Section 8(1) (j) of the Act from public disclosure.

Aggrieved respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Chief Information Officer (CIC), New Delhi. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal on the following grounds:

"It is reiterated that ACRs and Panel Proceedings are confidential documents and their disclosure does not serve any public interest or activity. Therefore, exemption is sought from public disclosure under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005."

The respondent filed a second appeal before the Central Information Commission. CIC directed the petitioner to furnish the requisite information to the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order dated 28.02.2011 passed by CIC the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

The Court, on hearing both sides observed as follows and held:

The point for consideration before this Court is whether disclosure of ACRs of the said three persons and approved panels in which the said three persons were placed falls within the purview of exceptions provided under Section 8 of the RTI Act?

Section 8(1) (j) of the Act was enacted to ensure that all information furnished to public authorities including personal information is not given free access to.

Annual Confidential Reports are essentially performance appraisal by higher officials which along with other things constitute the basis for promotions and other service benefits. It is a settled law that the performance of an employee in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by service rules which fall under the expression „personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest.

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.

In the instant case, the information sought by the respondent pertains to Govt. servants. 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. … 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.

This court is not in agreement with the observations of the learned CIC for the reasons aforesaid. The application is dismissed as infructuous.”

(VED PRAKASH VAISH) JUDGE APRIL 30th, 2015

*

( Not to be taken as copy of the Judgment. Extracted. Emphasis supplied.)

No comments:

Post a Comment