CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001394/8413
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001394
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Dr. A.K. Dawar
M-39-C, Rajori Garden,
New Delhi
Respondent : Mr. P. D. Sharma
Public Information Officer & Director
Employees State Insurance Corporation,
Panchdeep Bhavan, C.I.G Road
New Delhi-110002
RTI Filed on : 13/03/2009
PIO replied : 28/04/2009
First appeal filed on : 26/05/2009
First Appellate Authority Ordered on : 07/10/2009
Second Appeal received on : 11/12/2009
S.No. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Furnish information regarding placement of Seniors specialist Yes
Grade I and Medical officers who have been placed in the grade
of SAG in the Band 4 on regular bases.
Also provide the official order which has been placed in the said
pay scale under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression scheme.
2. Furnish information regarding the criteria of promotion of higher Yes promotion has been
grade which was only based on length of service excluding all given according to DPC
other conditions and the DACP Scheme which has been recommendation.
recommended by 6th pay commission.
3. Provide details and copies of meeting of DPC held on 18.2.2009 Any other criterion
which considered any other criteria or condition except the length considered by DPC is not
of service. known to this office.
4. Kindly inform regarding the ACR's taken for the purpose of Information enclosed
placement in SAG scale. Kindly supply the order, rule,
notification which speaks about it.
5. Kindly provide the details of the application for the last 5 years of Information enclosed
the ACR of the appellant with remarks & grading awards by the
Reporting Officer & the remarks of reviewing office with their
names.
6. Kindly provide the complete noting of DPC held on 18/02/2009 Document cannot be
for the purpose of placement under the grade of SAG. provided.
7. Kindly provide information regarding not placing the Applicant in The Applicant’s name has not
the scale of SAG despite that the Applicant name was shown in been considered for placement
in SAG scale by the DPC.
the list of eligible persons.
Page 1 of 3
Grounds for the First Appeal:
1. Photocopies of ACR not provided.
2. Names of reviewing and reporting officer is not given and their remarks not given.
3. Complete noting of DPC held on 18/02/2009.
First Appellate Authority (FAA) order:
Information provided by CPIO is sufficient.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by CPIO & FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Dr. A.K. Dawar;
Respondent: Mr. Raj Kanwal, Jt. Director (RTI) on behalf of Mr. P. D. Sharma, PIO & Director;
Ms. Manju Swaminathan, Deemed PIO & Dy. Director (Medical Branch);
The appellant states that he now needs information regarding query-5. In query-5 the appellant
had sought copies of his own Annual Confidential Reports (ACR). The PIO has refused to give this
information claiming that though the Supreme Court has ruled that ACRs of the employees must be
given as per DOPT Circulars only ACRs issued after the date of the Supreme Court’s Judgment would
be given. The PIO has also claimed exemptions Section 8(1)(e) & (g) of the RTI Act. Under the RTI
Act information can be denied to a citizen exercising his fundamental right only if it exempt under
Section 8(1) of the Act. Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act exempts, “information available to a person in
his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest
warrants the disclosure of such information;”.
Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act exempts from disclosure ‘information available to a person in his
fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest
warrants the disclosure of such information;’
The traditional definition of a fiduciary is a person who occupies a position of trust in relation to
someone else, therefore requiring him to act for the latter’s benefit within the scope of that relationship.
In business or law, we generally mean someone who has specific duties, such as those that attend a
particular profession or role, e.g. doctor, lawyer, financial analyst or trustee. Another important
characteristic of such a relationship is that the information must be given by the holder of information
who must have a choice,- as when a litigant goes to a particular lawyer, a customer chooses a particular
bank, or a patient goes to particular doctor. An equally important characteristic for the relationship to
qualify as a fiduciary relationship is that the provider of information gives the information for using it
for the benefit of the one who is providing the information. All relationships usually have an element of
trust, but all of them cannot be classified as fiduciary. Information provided in discharge of a statutory
requirement, or to obtain a job, or to get a license, cannot be considered to have been given in a
fiduciary relationship.
In the instant case senior officers give the ACR of an employee as part of the duties in a job. These
officers have no choice in the matter nor are they given it for their own benefit to the Government.
Hence fiduciary relationship can not be claimed for ACRs.
Page 2 of 3
Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act exempts, “information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life
or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence
for law enforcement or security purposes;”. It is a very sad comment on an organization if it states that
if information about the evaluation done by senior officer disclosed to the junior officers, junior
officers are likely to endanger the life or physical safety of such senior officers. This is a very poor
reflection on the employees of the public authority if this is the perception of employees working in
these organizations. The Commission is not in a position to judge whether employees of a particular
organization are law abiding or people who might endanger the life and physically safety of their senior
officers. If however the public authority believes this danger to be true it may sever the names of the
officers who have given the reports as per Section-10 of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the attested photocopies of the ACRs sought by the
appellant before 25 July 2010.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
06 July 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(YM)
Page 3 of 3