Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr.Varghesev P vs Bhabha Atomic Research Centre on 24 February, 2011

Central Information Commission
Mr.Varghesev P vs Bhabha Atomic Research Centre on 24 February, 2011
                      Central Information Commission, New Delhi
               File No.CIC/SM/A/2010/901430 & CIC/SM/C/2010/900975
                   Right to Information Act­2005­Under Section  (19)




Date of hearing                           :                              24 February 2011


Date of decision                          :                              24 February 2011



Name of the Appellant                     :   Shri V P Varghese
                                              D' Man/E, I C No. 9259,
                                              WIP NRGP (K), BARC (F),
                                              Kalpakkam, Distt - Kanchipuram (T.N.)


Name of the Public Authority              :   CPIO, Department of Atomic Energy,
                                              Bhaba Atomic Research Centre (F),
                                              Kalpakkam, Distt - Kanchipuram  603 
                                              102.



        The Appellant was present in person.

        On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Satyasai, CPIO was present.

Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra

2. We heard this case through video conferencing. Both the parties were 

present in the Kanchipuram studio of the NIC. We heard their submissions.

3. In two identical applications, the Appellant had sought several details 

about   his   service   including   the   copies   of   his   annual   confidential   reports. 

Between the CPIO and the Appellate Authority, much of the information had 

been provided although the copies of the annual confidential reports were not 

CIC/SM/A/2010/901430 & CIC/SM/C/2010/900975
disclosed by taking recourse to Section 8(1) (j) of the Right to Information (RTI) 

Act. The Respondent submitted that the facility in which the Appellant had been 

working was strategic in nature and that the annual confidential report of an 

employee like the Appellant would include a lot of technical details about the 

work performed by that employee. He further submitted that if the copies of the 

annual   confidential   reports   would   be   disclosed,   a   lot   of   details   about   the 

strategic nature of the work undertaken by the facility would be revealed which 

will not be in the national interest.

4. While agreeing with the above contention, we think that there would still 

be a lot of comments and assessments in the annual confidential report of an 

employee  other  than  the  technical  details  of  what  exact  work  he  has  been 

performing within the facility and such portions of the report could be disclosed 

without adversely affecting the security and strategic concerns. In the light of 

this, we would like to direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant within 10 

working   days   from   the   receipt   of   this   order   the   photocopies   of   his   annual 

confidential   reports   after   severing   those   entries/portions   from   these   reports 

which relate to the strategic and confidential activities being undertaken by the 

employee concerned within the facility.

5. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.

6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.

(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief Information Commissioner

CIC/SM/A/2010/901430 & CIC/SM/C/2010/900975
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.

(Vijay Bhalla)
Deputy Registrar

CIC/SM/A/2010/901430 & CIC/SM/C/2010/900975