•

r:E1 R1GHTTO
~IlIFORMAnO" ./
RTI Matter

¥
~~.~~
INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
~"ICFf: ~ ~
KRISHI BHA VAN: NEW DELHI

No. F.l(4)/201O - CR(A)&RTI Dated: April 17, 2012

To
The Directors/ Appellate Authorities/CPIOs/APIOs of all ICAR InstituteslNRCs/ PDs/
Bureaux! ZPDs.
All Appellate Authorities/CPIOs at ICAR Hqrs.

Subject: RTI Act, 2005 - ACRs exempted under section 8(1)(j) - important decision
ofCIC - reg.

SirlMadam,

I am to draw your kind attention towards a three bench decision dated 01.09.2011 of
Central Information Commission (CIC) on the subject mentioned above. A copy of CIC's
decision in the case of Shri SAA Abbasi vis EPFO has been uploaded on Council's website
www.icar.org.in for information and guidance of all concerned.

2. It is also to inform you that a book namely "Important Decisions of Central Information
Commission" compiled by ISTM, New Delhi has already been uploaded on ICAR's website
vide Council's circular dt. 03.11.2010 under Right to Information Act with the heading "RTI-
Important Decisions of CIC" for information and guidance of all concerned.

3. It is requested that the officers dealing with the implementation of the RTI Act may be
advised to study/refer to the decisions of the CIC on regular basis on the website at
http://cic.gov.in so as to enable them to deal with the requests received for seeking information
under the RTI Act efficiently and in the right perspective.

Yours faithfully,

(sanj~\~
Director (Admn.) &
Transparency Officer & Nodal Officer, RTI
TeI. 011-23384774
Copy for information to:
1. PPS to Secretary (DARE) & DG, ICARI PPS to AS(DARE) & Secretary, ICARI PS to
AS&FA, DAREIICARI PPS to Chairman, ASRB.
2. ADG(PIM)/AOG(CDN)/Proj. Dir.(DKMA), ICAR.
3. All Officers/ Sections at ICAR Hqrs. at KBIKAB-I/KAB-W NASC Complex.

- --_. '-- ._----._-- _ ... ... _-------

 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New
Delhi-ll0066
File NO.CIC/SM/C/2011/000934

NAME OF THE RTI APPLICANT - Shri SAA Abbasi

RESPONDENTS Employees Provident Fund Orgn.
NAME OF THE APPELLANT Ms. Mridula Ghai
(Third party)
DATE OF HEARING 17th August,2011
DATE OF DECISION 1st September, 2011
Facts :-

The background of the matter is that Shri SAA Abbasi, an officer of the
Employees Provident Fund Organisation(EPFO), vide letter dated 31.3.2011 had
sought the following information from the CPIO of EPFO :-

11 i. Attested copy of the ACRs of Ms. Mridula

Ghai, RPFC-II considered for promotion to the
post of RPFC-l.

11. Attested copy of the Vigilance Clearance in

respect of Ms. Mridula Ghai, RPFC-I, obtained
and considered for promotion to the post of
RPFC-I.

iii. Attested copy of the Note prepared by HRM

Division for promotion of RPFC-II to the post
of RPFC-I, wherein Ms. Mridula Ghai, RPFC-II
was also one of the candidate.

iv. Attested copy of the DPC proceedings that

made recolIDendation for promotion of RPFC-I,
wherein Ms. Mridula Ghai, RPFC-II was also
one of the candidate.

v. Attested copy of the noting side of the

relevant files on which the Note, DPC
Recommendations, as referred to under item
No. iii & iv above respectively, and approval
to the recommendations of the DPC by
competent authority has been granted.

vi. Before dispatch of the information, the

relevant files may be allowed to be inspected
so to confirm & finalize the documents
containing the requisite information."

2. The ePIO had responded to it vide letter dated

27.4.2011 wherein, on the basis of objections filed by
 Ms. Mridula Ghai, he had refused to disclose any
information. Paras 1 & 2 of his letter are extracted
below :-

"Please refer to your application dated

31.3.2011 seeking information under section 6 (1)
of the RTI Act, 2005, addressed to CPIO (HRM) and
copy of which has been transferred to CPIO
(ACR/APAR) cell for sending information on point
no. (i) of the application. As informed earlier,
a notice was issued to Ms. Mridula Ghai, RPFC Gr.
I at present on deputation, on accordance with
provisions of section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005. A
reply has since been received and the officer has
expressed her objection, if the copies of the ACRs
are given to a third party. The reply has been
considered with reference to the recent decisions
available at the CIC website (www.cic.qov.in)
which are also relevant to decide the RT!
application. in the case CIC/SS/A/2009/000145
dated 2.6.2010, it has been reiterated that copies
of ACRs of other persons/employees cannot be
provided to the 'third party' under the RT! Act.
In another case No. CIC/At/A/2010/000408 dated
31.8.2010, while relying upon its decision in
Gopal Kumar vs. army Hqrs. (appeal No.
CIC/AT/A/2006/00069 dated 13.6.2006) it has been
held that ACRs of the 'third party' are not to be
disclosed. In a very recent case No.
CIC/SS/A/2010/001146 decided on 17.3.2011, the CIC
has upheld the decision of the respondent to not
to give copies of ACRs and comparative statement
of ACRs being 'third party' information and as
held_such information exempted under section 8 (1)
(j) of the RTI Act.

2. Taking cognizance of the orders of CIC

treating the copies of ACRs of persons other than
the applicant under the RTI Act as 'third party
information' and treating them as exempted under
section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005, the
information sought under point No. (i) of your
application dated 31.3.2011 cannot be allowed and
hence the information is denied under the
provisions of section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act,
2005."

3. Aggrieved with the decision of the CPIO, Shri

Abbasi had filed an appeal before the first Appellate
Authority which was disposed of by the said authority
vide order dated 3.6.2011 wherein the appeal was

--------------------- ------
allowed. The operative para of the order is extracted
below :-

"3. Considering the material on record, the

following is ordered:-

• It is observed that CPIO (APAR) has denied

the information under the provisions of
section 8 (1) (j ) 0 taking cognizance of the
decisions of CIC in following cases:-

• No. CIC/SS/A/2009/000145 dated 2.6.2010,

wherein it has been reiterated that copies
of ACRs of other persons/ employees cannot
be provided to the 'third party' under the
RTI Act.

• No. CIC/AT/A/2010/00408 dated 31.8.2010,

wherein, while relying upon its decision
in Gopal Kumar vs. Army Hqrs. (Appeal No.
CIC/AT/A/2006/00069 dated 13.6.2006) it
has been held that ACRs of the 'third
party' are not to be disclosed.

• No. CIC/SS/A/2010/001146 decided on

17.3.2011, wherein the CIC had upheld the
decision of the respondent to not to give
copies of ACRs and comparative statement
of ACRs being 'third party' information
and as held such information exempted
under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.

The action CPIO (APAR) cell was correct as

per the position of law under the RTI Act,
2005.

• However, in another case decided on 18.5.2011

Case No. IC/SG/A/2011/000464/l2432, the CIC
had gone into the question in criteria
exemption of an information under section 8
(1) (j) of the RTI Act and has ordered that
annual confidential reports are not covered
by section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act and
disclosure of these cannot be construed as
invasion on the privacy of an individual.

• It is noted that the CIC has reviewed its

earlier decisions.

• It is accordingly ordered relying upon the

decision discussed at (ii) above, that the
CPIO (APAR) cell shall provide the desired
information at Sl. No. (i) of his application
 dated 31. 3.2011 within a period of 15 days
from the date of order."

4. Ms. Mridula Ghai has filed the present appeal

before this Commission against the order of the first
Appellate Authority. The matter is heard on 17.8.2011
by a Full Bench consisting of the following :-

• Shri Satyananda Mishra, Chief Information

Commissioner;

• Shri M.L. Sharma, Information Commissioner;

and

• Smt. Sushma Singh, Information Commissioner.

The following are present before the Commission :-

• Shri S.R. Pande for the appellant;

• Shri Sanjay Bisht, CPIO, PFO

• Shri SAA Abbasi.

5. At the very threshold, we would like to state

that the apellant has filed the present appeal only
against the disclosure of information referred to in
para 01 of the RTI application which is as follows :-

"Attested copy of the ACRsof Mridula Ghai, RPFC-

11 considered for promotion to the post of RPFC-
I."

It is clarified that this Bench is not concerned

with other paras of the RTI application for the
purposes of the present hearing.

6. Shri Pande, appearing for the appellant, strongly

assails the decision of the first Appellate Authority
wherein copies of the appellant's ACRs were ordered to
be supplied to Shri Abbasi. It is his say that it is
third party information with which Shri Abbasi has no
concern. Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in
Dev Dutt case (Civil Appeal No.7631 of 2002), he
submi ts that even as per this ruling, the ACRs are
disclosable only to the officers to whom they belong.
These cannot be provided to third party. He also
assails the Appellate Authority's order on the ground
that it is violative of section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI
Act. He concedes that personal information can be
disclosed in the larger public interest but he
vehemently argues that the Appellate Authority has not
adverted to any larger public interest in the cryptic
order passed by it. This order, according to Shri
Pande, is devoid of merit and warrants to be set
aside.

7. On the other hand, Shri Abbasi strongly opposes

the appeal filed by Ms Mridula Ghai. It is his say
that Ms. Mridula Ghai had worked directly under him
for a number of years and, as per rules, he was
supposed to write her ACRs for all these years.
However, she manipulated the things and had her ACRs
written by other officer(s) who were not empowered to
wri te them as per prevailing rules. He adds that Ms
Ghai was apprehensive that he (Abbasi) would correctly
reflect various acts of omission and commission
committed by her in the discharge of her duties while
working directly under him and in order to avoid this
eventuality, she manipulated the things in such a
manner that her ACRs were not written by him and were
wri tten by unauthorised officers. Shri Abbasi also
briefly alludes to serious allegations made by her
against him, adversely reflecting on his character and
integrity, just to malign him and harm his career. He
had to face a departmental enquiry and was visited
with punishment which was, ultimately, quashed by CAT,
Delhi. When queried by the Commission as to how
copies of the ACRs of Ms Ghai would be in the larger
public interest, Shri Abbasi would submit that Ms.
Ghai has secured promotion through fraud and
manipulation by way of having her ACRs written by
unauthorised officers and by misrepresenting the facts
before superior officers of the department and in this
context, disclosure of the requested information would
be in the larger public interest as it would enable
him to take legal recourse.

8. The Commission is not concerned with the friction

and acrimony in the inter- personal relationship
between the appellant and Shri Abbasi. The Commission
is concerned only with the disclosability of the
requested information. Suffice it to say that the
ACRs of Ms Ghai is her 'personal information' which is
protected from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the
RTI Act. It is also third party information in
respect of which procedure prescribed under section
11(1) was followed and she vehemently objected to the
disclosure of this information. Accordingly, the CPIO
had refused to disclose any information to Shri
Abbasi. However, the Appellate Authority set aside
the order of the CPIO relying on the following
decisions of this Commission viz :

(i) Decision dated 2.6.2010 in File No.

CIC/SS/A/2009/000145

(ii)
Decision dated 31.8.2010 in File No.
CIC/AT/A/2010/000408

(iii) Decision dated 17.3.2011 in File No.

CIC/SS/A/2010/001146

(iv)Decision dated 18.5.2011 in File No.

CIC/SG/A/2011/000464/12432.

9. We have carefully examined the above decisions.

Suffice it to say that in decisions mentioned at Sl.
Nos. (i), (ii) & (iii), it is held that ACRs are not
to be disclosed to a third party. However, in the
decision mentioned at Sl. No.(iv), it has been
expounded that the ACRs of officers can be disclosed
to the public in general. The rationale for this
decision is depicted by the Single Bench in one of the
paras of the decision which is extracted below :-

"Therefore, disclosure of information such as

property details, any conviction/acquittal of
criminal charges, etc. of a public servant, which
is routinely collected by the public authority and
provided by the public servants, cannot be
construed as an invasion of the privacy of an
individual and must be provided an applicant under
the RTI Act. Similarly, citizens have a right to
know about the strengths and weaknesses as well as
performance evaluation of all public servants.
The Government is elected by the citizens of India
and it is the duty of such government through its
officers to protect the rights of the citizens.
The salary of such government officers is also
paid from the public exchequer. For these
reasons, every citizen has the right to know and
obtain information about the performance of every
public servant or government officer to ascertain
whether the duties entrusted to such public
servant or government officer are being carried
out."

10. In our opinion, the view taken by the Single

Bench does not lay down the correct law. Suffice it
to say that ACRs are personal to the officers
concerned. Even as per the Supreme Court ruling in
Dev Dutt' s case, the ACRs are liable to be disclosed

~~~~-------- -------------------
only to the civil servants concerned. They are not
liable to be disclosed to third party. Further, the
government holds the officer's ACRs in fiduciary
capaci ty. This information can be disclosed only in
the larger public interest. The Single Bench has not
demonstrated any larger public interest in passing the
order under reference. It is also pertinent to
mention that in its earlier decision dated 22.5.2009
in Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000365(J.S. Solthe -Vs-
National Institute of Technology), the same Bench had
taken a different view. Para 14 of the said order is
extracted below :-

"14. No public purpose is going to be served by disclosing this

information. On the contrary it may lead to harming public interest in
terms of compromising objectivity of assessment - which is the core
and the substance of the ACT, which may result from the uneasiness
of the Reporting, Reviewing and the Accepting officers from the
knowledge that their comments were no longer confidential. These
ACRS are used by the public house-keeping and man management
functions of any organization. A certain amount of confidentiality
insulates these actions from competing pressures and thereby
promotes objectivity."

11. In the subsequent decision, the Single Bench has

not adduced any new grounds for deviating from its
earlier decision.

12. On a thoughtful consideration of the matter, we

are not inclined to agree with the view taken by the
Single Bench for the reasons mentioned above. We may
also add that Shri Abbasi has not been able to
establish any larger public interest in seeking
disclosure of the impugned ACRs. In our opinion, the
ACRs are personal to Ms. Ghai and are exempted from
disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. This
appeal, therefore, must fail. Dismissed.

Order reserved and pronounced on 01 st September,

2011.

Smt. Sushma Singh

( M.L. Sharma )
Information Cornrnissioner
Information Commissioner

( Satyananda Mishra )
Chief Information Commissioner