Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
Decision No.4962/IC(A)/2009
F. No.CIC/MA/A/2009/000623
Dated, the 5th January, 2010
Name of the Appellant: Dr. Suchita Ninawe
Name of the Public Authority: Department of Biotechnology
i
Facts
:
1. Both the parties were heard on 04/01/2010.
2. The appellant, an employee of the respondent, has grievances regarding
service matters, mainly promotion. She had earlier taken up the matter with the
CAT, which directed the respondent to review the ACRs of the appellant. In this
backdrop, the appellant has asked for access to all the relevant documents
pertaining to her promotion, including revision of ACRs.
3. While the CPIO has replied and indicated the action taken in respect of
the review of ACRs, the documents including the ACR grades, as asked for by
the appellant, has, however, not been furnished to her. The CPIO has relied on
DoPT’s guidelines for denial of information, whereas the appellant pleaded for
disclosure of ACRs and related information on the basis of a few decisions of the
Supreme Court.
4. In the course of hearing, the details of the information asked for and the
respondents replies were discussed.
Decision:
5. The appellant has asked for access to the entire documents relating to her
promotion, including the review of ACRs by the competent authority, as per the
CAT’s order. The appellant’s plea for disclosure of ACR grades is accepted.
Since the disclosure of such details would assist her in improving upon her work
performance, the CPIO is therefore directed to disclose the ACR grades of the
i
“If you don’t ask, you don’t get.” – Mahatma Gandhi
1
appellant in respect of 2003-04 to 2006-07 within 10 working days from the date
of issue of this decision.
6. As regards the disclosure of ‘file notings’ containing the views and
remarks of various officials, who may have expressed their views in the matter of
the suitability of the appellant for promotion, the note sheet may not be disclosed.
Because such remarks contribute to the process of a final decision and are
expressed in confidence. The disclosure of such details recorded at the
process stage would unduly discourage the officials from making a frank and
candid advice in personnel matters. Therefore, the relevant ‘file notings’ ought
not be disclosed u/s 8(1)(e) and (j) of the Act.
7. However, since the appellant has already approached the Court which has
full control over the information held by the respondent, the appellant would be
free to access the information through the Court and also get the legal relief in
the matter.
8. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari)
Central Information Commissioner ii
Authenticated true copy:
(M.C. Sharma)
Deputy Registrar
Name & address of Parties:
1. Dr. Suchita Ninawe, Scientist-E, Department of Biotechnology, 7th floor,
Block-2, CGO complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi – 110 003.
2. Mrs. Beena Chakravarty, PIO, Department of Biotechnology, 8th floor,
Block-2, CGO Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi – 110 003.
3. Shri. N.S. Samant, Appellate Authority, Department of Biotechnology, 7th
floor, Block-2, CGO Complex, Lodi road, New Delhi – 110 003.
ii
“All men by nature desire to know.” – Aristotle
2