Mr.Dharam Pal Rana vs Insurance Division on 10 June, 2010

                                                1


                            CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.296, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
                  Telefax:011-26180532 & 011-26107254 website: cic.gov.in
                             Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2009/001118­DS

Appellant               :       Shri Dharam Pal Rana,
Public Authority        :       National Insurance Co. Ltd, Kolkata
Date of Hearing         :       10/06/2010
Date of Decision        :       10/06/2010

Facts

:-

The Appellant Shri D.P. Rana vide his RTI request dated 20/02/2009 sought
information from CPIO, National Insurance Company Limited, Kolkata in which he sought
copies of his ACRs for 06 years from 1999 to 2005.

2. He also sought the details of the officers who have been given benefit of technical
insurance qualifications for promotion more than once with effect from promotion exercise
2003 till date and also qualifications of 02 other employees Enclosed herewith as Annexure
A.

3. CPIO vide his order dated 23/03/2009 denied disclosure of information as sought under
points 3 i) & ii) under sub section (e) of section 8(1) of the Act.

4. Other information sought by the appellant was denied citing sub section (a) of section
8(1) of the Act.

5. Aggrieved by the above decision, the appellant preferred first appeal dated 30/03/2009
before FAA which was not adjudicated upon by the FAA.

6. The appellant has come before the Commission challenging CPIO’s order vide his
appeal dated 08/06/2009.

7. The matter was heard today. Respondents were heard through video conferencing.
Appellant appeared in person. Appellant stated that he had been overlooked for promotion
exercise of 2003 and had reason to believe that he was not assessed fairly by his reporting and
reviewing officers who he claimed were involved in unlawful activities for which they were
later charge-sheeted and suspended.

8. As per his averments, the said officers were biased against him for not being part of
their unlawful activities.

9. Accordingly, he sought copies of CRs for 06 years from 1999 to 2005.

10. Respondents stated that, as per the rules, ACR for 04 years were taking cognizance of
during the promotion exercise. Also, there was 03 tier system of assessment in the ACRs, i.e.,
by reporting officer, first reviewing officer + overall grading by second reviewing officer and,
therefore, the appellant could not claim to have been hurt by biased reporting by the reporting
and first reviewing officer.

2

11. The appellant, however, stated that while the reporting and the first reviewing officer
were functioning in his immediate work environment, the final reviewing officer was located at
an office located in another city and did not have personal knowledge of the work being done
by him and most often agreed in a routine manner with the assessment of the first two
authorities.

12. Respondents stated that during the promotion exercise the competent authority assessed
the officer due for promotion on several parameters including qualification, seniority and
ACRs.

DECISION

13. In respect of point 3. iii) 1) & 2) of the RTI application, respondent may provide a copy
of the relevant rules as applicable during the period 2003-February, 2009 to the appellant.

Point 3. iii) 2) Respondents are directed to provide the number of persons given advantage
beyond the number of times as prescribed under the rules.

14. Specific information in respect of third party as sought by the appellant is denied under
section 8(1)(j) and need not be provided.

15. Respondents stated that currently promotion exercise is being conducted and requested
for extra time for providing information.

16. Accordingly, it is ordered that the above information may be provided to the appellant
within 06 weeks of receipt of this order.

17. The Commission noted the submissions made by both sides bearing in mind the OM
dated 21/09/2007 issued by DoPT and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt
Vs. Union of India & Ors. and other cases.

18. Para 09 of CIC’s landmark decision dated 19/02/2009(in Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/
2007/00422 dated 20/04/2007):-

“Perusal of the Memorandum indicates that discretion has been left with the public
authority to disclose or not to disclose ACRs to an employee depending upon as to whether
the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interest.”

19. In the present case, the Commission sees merit in the submissions of the appellant and
keeping in view the above mentioned decision directs the respondent to provide photocopy of
3

the remarks made by reporting and first reviewing officer in respect of the appellant’s ACRs
for the years 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 since it is these four ACRs that were
taken into consideration for the promotion exercise of 2003 by the competent authority. The
Commission also directs the respondents to provide the overall grading of the appellant to the
appellant in respect of the above 04 ACRs and also the ACRs for the years 2003-04 and 2004-
05 which is in keeping with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt Vs. Union
of India and Ors (2008 8 SCC 725). The Commission wishes to place on record that this
decision had been taken after giving due weightage to the arguments of the respondent
particularly as per their written submission in which they have observed that:-

• “disclosure of ACRs would seriously harm interpersonal relationship in an
organization.

• ACR notings represent an inter action based on trust and confidence between the officer
involve in initiating, reviewing or accepting the ACRs.

• These officers could be seriously embarrassed and even compromised if their notings
are made public.

• No public purpose is going to be served by disclosing this information. On the
contrary it may lead to harm public interest in terms of compromising objectivity of
ACR.

• System of ACR is established for the sake of good governance in the organization and
breach of its confidentiality may adversely affect the system.

• The information sought for is of personal nature as being provided by the individuals as
per their assessment in respect of appraisee.”

20. After considering the averments of the respondents and the appellant, the Commission
has arrived at the above decision.

21. Information as at para 19 above to be provided within 03 weeks of receipt of this order.

(Smt. Deepak Sandhu)
Information Commissioner (DS)
Authenticated true copy:

4

(Tarun Kumar)
Joint Secretary & Addl. Registrar

Copy to:-

1. Shri Dharam Pal Rana,
Assistant Manager, Direct Agents Branch-II,
National Insurance Co. Ltd, 21 Daryaganj,
Delhi-110002.

     2.       The Central Public Information Officer,
              Under RTI Act, 2005,
              National Insurance Co. Ltd,
              Head Office: 3, Middleton Street,
              Kolkata-700071.

3.   The Appellate Authority,
           Under RTI Act, 2005,
           National Insurance Co. Ltd,
           Head Office: 3, Middleton Street,
           Kolkata-700071.