Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/09/00131
Dated February 18, 2009
Name of the Applicant : Ms. Parveen
Name of the Public Authority : Indian Council of Forestry Research
& Education
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.4.8.08 with the PIO, ICFRE. He
requested for the following information:
i) Copies of the ACR dossiers from Part I to Part V from May 2003 to
March 2008
ii) What is the criteria adopted for awarding the marks on the basis of
assessment made by Reporting Officer, remarks of Reviewing Officer
and remarks of Accepting Authority from May 2003 to March 2008
iii) How many marks she has received from May 2003 to March 2008
iv) What are the guidelines for Reviewing Officer to make appropriate
remarks on the basis of assessment of the Reporting Officer.
The PIO replied on 17.9.08 providing the criteria for overall grading such as
Poor – 0 Marks, Average – 4 marks, Good – 6 marks, Very Good – 8 marks,
Outstanding – 10 marks. He denied copies of ACR and marks received based
on the CIC decision which states ACRs of officers and employees need not be
disclosed because it does not contribute to any public interest. The Applicant
filed an appeal dt.13.10.08 with the Appellate Authority. On not receiving
any reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.25.11.08 before CIC.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the
hearing on February 18, 2009.
3. Dr. Savita M. Jain, R.A. Grade I and Mr. S.S. Chauhan. Office Supdt.
represented the Public Authority.
4. The Applicant was not present during the hearing.
Decision
5. The Commission took note of the fact that the criterion for awarding marks
on the basis of assessment made by the Reporting Officer to the remarks of
the Reviewing Officer and the Accepting Authority were conveyed by the CPIO
to the Appellant vide his letter dated 17th September, 2008. However, the
Appellant’s contention in the first appeal was that the information provided to
her is not what she is seeking since the CPIO did not mention how the marks
have been given on the assessment made by the reporting officer. (ACR Part
III: 3.1). She also stated in the appeal that no adverse remarks were
communicated to her on her performance and therefore, she needed to know
why she has not been promoted continuously for two years on the basis of
her ACRs, since she believes that her performance was excellent.
6. The Commission observed that the issue in this case is why the Appellant
has been denied promotion continuously for two years even after no adverse
remarks have been communicated to her on her performance. In this
connection it would be pertinent to refer to the Full Bench Decision passed
vide order dated 19.02.2009 in Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00422 concerning
disclosure of ACRs referring to the Supreme Court decision addressing the
same issue. The CIC decision reads as hereunder:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Dev Dutt’s case supra
has clearly laid down that they are developing the principles of
natural justice by holding that fairness and transparency in
public administration requires that all entries (whether poor,
fair, average, good or very good) in the ACR of a public servant,
whether in civil, judicial, police or any other State service
(except the Military) , must be communicated to him within a
reasonable period so that he can make a representation for its
upgradation. The Hon’ble Court has further declared that these
directions will not apply to Military Officers but they will apply
to employees of statutory authorities, public sector
corporations and other instrumentalities of the State (in
addition to Government servants).
The aforesaid Supreme Court decision relates to
communication of entries made in the ACRs, more particularly,
the grade assigned to an employee (whether poor, fair,
average, good or very good). This still leaves the issue as to
whether copies of the ACRs (whether photostat or certified)
could be issued to an employee under the Right to Information
Act. The Hon’ble Apex Court has stated that the communication
of the entries to a public servant must enable him to make a
representation against the entry to the concerned authority.
Mere communication of an assigned grade will naturally not
enable him to exercise his right of making a representation in
an effective manner. The Hon’ble Court has further held that
“all this would be conducive to fairness and transparency in
public administration and would result in fairness to public
servants.”
The objective of the Right to Information Act is also to bring
transparency and accountability in the working of all Public
Authorities. The disclosure of ACRs to the concerned employee
cannot, therefore, be denied in the light of decision/directives
of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in which in developing the principle
of natural justice the Hon’ble Court has ruled that “the concept
of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in
recent years. In the past it was thought that it included just
two rules, namely(1) no one shall be a judge in his own cause
(Nemo debet csse judexe propria causa) and (2) no decision
shall be given against a party without affording him a
reasonable hearing (audi alteram partem). Very soon
thereafter a third rule was envisaged and that is that quasi-
judicial enquiries must be held in good faith, without bias and
not arbitrarily or unreasonably. But in the course of years many
more subsidiary rules came to be added to the rules of natural
justice.” This does not, however, imply that it will necessarily
be desirable to provide either a photocopy or a certified copy of
the ACRs to a public servant.
7. In view of the latest decision of the Full Bench of CIC as mentioned
hereinabove and the Supreme Court decision in Dev Dutt vs. Union of India &
Ors. [(2008)8 SCC 725] it is decided that the complete information as sought
by the Appellant in the instant case, including all the information in the
ACRs may be duly communicated to her within 15 days of receipt of this
order.
8. The appeal is disposed off.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(K.G.Nair)
Designated Officer
Cc:
1. Ms.Parveen
Scientist-B
Divn. Of Genetics & Tree Propagation
Forest Research Institute
P.O. IPE, Kaulagarh Road
Dehradun 248 195
Uttarakhand
2. The CPIO
Indian Council of Forestry
Research & Education
P.O.New Forest
Dehradun 248 006
3. The Appellate Authority
Indian Council of Forestry
Research & Education
P.O.New Forest
Dehradun 248 006
4. Officer in charge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC