CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/01565 dated 19.9.2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Dr. Ashok Khemka
Respondent - Dep't. of Personnel & Training (DoPT).
Facts
:
By an application of 8.7.’08, Dr. Ashok Khemka of Chandigarh applied to
the Secretary, DoPT seeking the following information with regard to a
representation submitted by him regarding his ACRs for the years 2001-02 &
2002-03:
“Please supply me the following information so that I can prove the
truth about the deliberate fraud committed in my ACRs before your
good self.
1. Your reasons, if any, for rejecting my representation dated
23.7.2007 along with the relevant file notings of the
Department, observations / comments of the Cabinet
Secretary and order of the Hon’ble Prime Minister.
2. A copy of letter No. 30/1/2003-SI dated 16.11.2007 of the
Chief Secretary Haryana referred to in your above letter
along with any other relevant document or material which the
Department might have considered while rejecting my
representation.
3. A copy of all my ACRs with all entries for the following years
: 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06.
4. Any ACR in my service record, which in the opinion of the
Department may affect my empanelment as Joint Secretary
in Government of India.
5. A copy of the cancelled document earlier created as ACR for
the year 2002-03.
6. Which period my ACRs for the years 2001-02 and 2002-03
as existing in your records pertain to? Is any No Record
Certificate for the years 2001-02 and 2002-03 placed in my
service record? If so, to which period this NRC pertains to
and on which date was this NRC certificate placed in your
records? When was the original ACR placed in your
records?”
To this he received a response on 5.8.08 from Ms. Shanti Puri, Section
Officer (PR), as follows:
1
“the information sought at Sr. No. 3, 4, 5 & 6 in your letter under
reference cannot be disclosed as disclosure of such information
attracts Sec. 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. As
regards S. No. 1, it is inform that as per O.M. No. 10/1/2006-IR
dated 10.4.2008, the disclosure of file noting does not form the part
of information under the RTI Act and that it is not to be disclosed.
As regards S. No. 2, which relates to supply a copy of letter No.
30/1/2003-SI dated 16.11.2007 of the Chief Secretary, Haryana, it
is informed that it contains 16 pages & same can be provided on
remittance of requisite fee of Rs. 32/- i.e. Rs. 2/- per page.”
In the meantime, however, because Dr. Khemka had invoked the proviso of
life & liberty to sec. 7(1) in moving his initial application, he had already moved
his first appeal on 2.8.08 before Shri Bharat Prasad, Director (PR), DOPT
pleading as follows, in bold letters :
“The disclosure of ACRs is mandatory as per judgment and order
dated May 12, 2008 of Hon’ble Judge Markandey Katju of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 7631 of 2002 titled Dev
Dutt vs. Union of India. Further, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High
Court has mandated disclosure of ACRs under the RTI Act by its
decision dated May 19, 2008 in CWP No. 8396 of 2008 titled State
of Punjab vs. State Information Commission, Punjab.”
Upon this appellate authority Shri Chanan Ram Dy. Secretary to Govt. of
India, DoPT, in his order of 28.7.08 directed as follows:
“Insofar as information sought against Sr. No. 1, 3, 4, 5 is
concerned, it is stated that the information contained therein are
confidential documents and Rule 8(1)(j) of he RTI Act, 2005 also
exempts the disclosure of such information which has no
relationship to any public activity which may cause invasion of
privacy of individual concerned. As such your appeal in so far as
information sought by you against point 1, 3, 4, 5 is hereby
rejected.”
He also stated that “I do not find sufficient reasons to believe that you need
to be provided information sought by you within 48 hours due to serious threat to
your life and property.”
In his prayer before us in second appeal, Dr. Khemka has pleaded as
follows:
2
“Information denied is sought at Sr. Nos. 1, 3, 4 & 5 above”
Dr Khemka’s appeal was followed by a request of 23.3.’09 pleading that his
batch of the IAS was now due for empanelment, and his case may be heard out
of turn to allow his name to come up for consideration. The Commission agreed
this to. The appeal was heard through videoconference on 13.4.2009. The
following are present:
Appellant at NIC Studio, Chandigarh
Dr. Ashok Khemka
Respondents at CIC Studio, New Delhi.
Shri Chanan Ram, Dy. Secretary
Ms. Shanti Puri, Section OfficerDr. Khemka opened his arguments by submitting that the information sought at Q.
Nos. 2, 3, 5 & 6 has been obtained by him from the State Government in compliance
with the orders of the Supreme Court in Dev Dutt vs. Union of India, Civil Appeal
No. 7631 of 2002. On the other hand he has alleged that there are some
contradictory ACRs held by the DOPT, hence his question at No. 4. He also seeks
disclosure of the file notings as sought against question No. 1, and argued as to how
file noting is apart of ‘information’ as defined in Sec 2 sub-section(f).
On the question of compliance with the orders of the Supreme Court in Dev Dutt
vs. Union of India, Shri Chanan Ram submitted that although he does not directly deal
with the subject, his information is that his Department is reviewing its policy and will
shortly issue instructions in this regard. On file notings, however, he submitted that he
is under instructions from the Department that file noting is not to be disclosed. He also
submitted that the CPIO is not the appropriate authority to judge which ACR will prove
an impediment in the procedure of empanelment, which is the subject of the question
posed at Sr. No. 4 by appellant Dr. Khemka.
DECISION NOTICE
Since appellant Dr. Khemka does not press for a decision on questions 2,
3, 5 & 6, we see no reason for interference by this Commission. On the other
3
hand, the disclosure of file notings under the RTI Act stands established through
a decision of the Commission dated 29.1.2007 in Appeal No.
CIC/OK/A/2006/00154 – Pyare Lal Verma vs. Ministry of Railways and several
decisions thereafter. Dr Khemka’s appeal on this issue is therefore allowed. File
noting in this case in which reasons for rejecting his representation dated
23.7.2007 along with the relevant observations / comments of the Cabinet
Secretary and order of the Prime Minister, if any, will, therefore, be disclosed to
appellant Dr. Khemka within ten working days of the date of receipt of this
Decision Notice.
On Q. No. 4, however, it is quite clear that CPIO not being the authority for
empanelment is in no position to hazard an opinion on which ACR of Dr. Khemka
will be taken into account and which rejected by the screening committee in its
process of empanelment. Obviously, there is no recorded opinion in this regard,
which would render it liable to disclosure u/s 2 (j) read with Sec 2 (f). Since the
disclosure of ACR entries as asked for has already been made, the appeal on
the issue of the response to question 4 is without merit.
The appeal is, therefore, allowed in part. There will be no costs.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the
parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
13.4.2009
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO
of this Commission.
(Pankaj Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
13.4.2009
4