Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/C/2008/00141
Dated March 13, 2009
Name of the Applicant : Mr. M. R. Garg
Name of the Public Authority : Dept. of Post, Muzaffarnagar
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.31.8.07 with the CPIO, DoP,
Muzaffarnagar. He requested for copies of ACR since he had retired on
31.7.02 from the post of HSG-1 cadre. The CPIO [Sr. Superintendent of Post
Office] replied on 27.9.07 stating that the CR was sent to CPMG on
27.12.2001 and had not been returned as yet. Hence the documents as
sought by the Appellant were not available with the Sr. Superintendent of
Post Office.
2. The Applicant filed an application with the office of the Chief Post Master
General on 01.10.2007. The CPIO/ Director Postal Services Lucknow informed
the Appellant vide letter dated 30.10.2007 that the ACRs of the official are
barred from disclosure and hence the documents cannot be supplied. The
Appellant filed an appeal on 02.06.2008 with the Director General
Department of Post, Dak Bhawan challenging the order of the CPIO/DPS.
However no response was received by the Appellant from the Respondent
Authority and hence a reminder was sent on 06.08.2008. The Chief Post
Master General replied vide letter dated 30.09.2008 upholding/confirming the
decision of the CPIO. Being thus aggrieved the appellant filed a Second Appeal
before CIC on 16.12.08.
3. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the
hearing for March 13, 2009.
4. Sh. R K Malik, PRI (P) Muzaffarnagar being duly authorized by the CPIO & Sr.
Supdt of Post Offices represented the Public Authority.
Decision
5. The Commission observed that in the present case, the Appellant has been
denied information by the Respondent Public Authority. 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 while referring to the Supreme Court decision addressing the issue of
disclosure of ACRs. The CIC decision reads as under:
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.
6. 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, meaning certified photocopies of the
ACRs shall be duly provided to him within 15 days of receipt of this order.
7. The appeal is disposed off on the above terms.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(K.G.Nair)
Designated Officer
Cc:
1. Mr.M.R.Garg
Retd. Dy. Post Master
235 Aryapuri
Muzaffarnagar
Uttar Pradesh
2. The CPIO &
Sr. Supdt. of Post Office
Department of Post
Mujaffarnagar Division
Mujaffarnagar
3. CPIO CPMG,
Lucknow Circle
Lucknow
4. Officer in charge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC