Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2010/001029
Dated August 16, 2010
Name of the Applicant : Dr.Vijay Kumar Agarwal
Name of the Public Authority : North Central Railway, Allahabad
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.7.12.09 with the PIO, North Central Railway, Jhansi seeking
the copies of his ACRs for the period ending March 2004, March 2005, March 2006, March 2007 and
March 2008. Shri S.K.Singh, PIO, North Central Railway HQ replied on 23.12.09 denying the
information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. He, however, added that as per the guidelines of DoPT all the
entries of APAR are being communicated to the concerned employee with effect from year 200809 .
Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.26.2.10 with the Appellate Authority. Shri
Alok Gupta, Appellate Authority replied on 10.3.10 stating that as per DoPT OM dt.14.5.09, only
ACRs for the period 20082009 can be provided. Being aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed a
second appeal dt.25.5.10 before CIC.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for August 16,
2010 through video conferencing.
3. Shri S.K.Singh, PIO and Shri Alok Gupta, Appellate Authority represented the Public Authority were
present at NIC Studio, Allahabad.
4. The Appellant was also present at NIC Studio, Allahabad.
Decision
5. 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 given 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 quasijudicial 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 the light of the decision of the Full Bench of CIC as quoted hereinabove, the
Commission has decided to allow copies of ACRs for the period ending March 2004, March 2005,
March 2006, March 2007 and March 2008 of the Appellant to him by 20.9.10. The Appellant to submit a
compliance report to the Commission by 25.9.10.
6. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Dr.Vijay Kumar Agarwal
H.No.1214
Civil Lines
Station Road
Jhansi 284 001
2. The PIO
North Central Railway
Headquarters Office
BBlock, GM Office
Subedarganj
Allahabad
3. The Appellate Authority
North Central Railway
Headquarters Office
BBlock, GM Office
Subedarganj
Allahabad
4. Officer incharge, NIC