CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00655
Dated, the 20th November, 2008.
Appellant : Shri Shiv Shankar Mishra
Respondents : Income Tax Settlement Commission
This second-appeal came up for hearing on 12.11.2007. Appellant was
present in person, while the respondents were represented by Shri R.R. Prasad,
CPIO and Shri Narendra Kumar, Admn. Officer.
2. From what the appellant has stated in his appeal-petition and on perusing
his RTI-query dated 24.03.2008, it is noticed that he is disturbed by the failure of
certain officers entrusted with writing of his Annual Confidential Report for the
period 06.03.2006 to 19.04.2007, to communicate the reports to the officer
entrusted with the task of maintaining all such reports. According to the
appellant, all such reports were to be maintained in the office of the Chief
Income Tax Commissioner, Kanpur. But no such reports have yet been
transmitted to that office. Appellant’s apprehension is that his ACRs have been
deliberately withheld in order to hurt his chances of promotion through
consideration by the DPC.
3. The requested information is as follows:-
“1. Has the above Confidential Report (i.e. for the period 06.03.2006
to 19.04.2007) has been submitted to Chief Income Tax
Commissioner, Kanpur? If yes, information relating to submission
of the Report.
2. If no, by which time it will be submitted and the reason for delay.
3. The name, designation and office address of the person, who is
responsible for the delay in submission of the Confidential Report
for the above-period.
4. The names of those public servants whose CRs have been held up,
and the reasons for such holding up (period 2006-07).”
4. Respondents have given some reply to the appellant through the CPIO’s
communication dated 22.04.2008 and through the Appellate Authority’s dated
08.05.2008. This did not satisfy the appellant.
5. Upon hearing the submissions of the respondents and the appellant, it is
found that although the respondents have the information that the appellant’s
Page 1 of 2
above-mentioned ACR was written by the Reporting Officer and was entrusted
to the Reviewing Officer, thereafter the movement of the ACR file is not known
to the office. Respondents have been corresponding directly with the appellant
to request him to furnish his self-assessment once again for the
above-mentioned period in order to enable the officers to write his ACR afresh.
Appellant’s point is that the office should not correspond with him directly but
should formally write to the superior officer who alone should obtain the
requisite self-assessment forms from the appellant and transmit it to the office
where his ACR is to be written.
6. It is noted that the major problem in this matter has emerged largely
because the ACR for the period 06.03.2006 to 19.04.2007 has been lost and has
not been retrieved as yet in spite of search.
7. In consideration of all the submissions, it is directed that the CPIO shall
provide to the appellant information exactly corresponding to his query at Serial
No.1 and a proper explanation (as stated by him now before the Commission) for
query at Sl.No.2.
8. Since no useful purpose will be served by exploring the official
malfunctioning which resulted in the delay or the loss of the ACRs of the
appellant, it is directed that no information need be furnished in respect of
Sl.Nos.3 and 4 of the appellant’s RTI-application. Respondents should furnish
the information regarding Sl.Nos.1 and 2 within two weeks of the receipt of this
order.
9. Appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
10. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Page 2 of 2
