Disclosure of ACRs denied u/s 8(1)(j) by PIO - appellant submitted that he has not been treated impartially since information has been given to others concerning similar request - CIC: IG Police (HQ) to get the matter enquired into by a Senior Officer
15 Oct, 2013Copy of own ACR from the period 2005 to 2011 and copy of Performance and Integrity Certificate which was used in promotion sought - PIO: disclosure of ACRs denied u/s 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. - appellant submitted that he has not been treated impartially since information has been given to others concerning similar request – CIC: even if the PIO erred in interpreting law, he cannot discriminate between the applicants - IG Police (HQ) to get this matter enquired into by a Senior Police Official and take necessary action under intimation to the appellant - PIO directed to provide copy of appellant’s ACRs free of cost
ORDER
Shri S. Vengadesan, the appellant has filed this appeal dated 12.9.2012 before the Commission against the respondent Police Department, Puducherry for not providing information in response to his RTI-request dated 26.3.2012. The matter came up for hearing on 07.08.2013 at Puducherry. The appellant was present whereas the respondents were represented by Shri Praveen Kumar Tripathi, SP (MT).
2. The appellant through his RTI application dated 26.3.2012 sought information on the following two queries:
“(1) Furnish the signed copy of his ACR from the period 2005 to 2011;
(2) Furnish signed copy of his Performance and Integrity Certificate which was used in both promotion Gr-I and G-II Driver (PD) in 2010 vide promotion orders No. 222/A3/Estt.I/POL/Driv-Gr-I/2010 dated 2.11.2010 and 223/A3/Esst.I/POL/Driv-Gr-II/2010 dated 26.11.2010 (S. Vengatesan, Driver (PD Gr-III.”
The SP(MT)/PIO vide letter No. 49/SP(MT)/ RTI/2012-21 dated 17.4.2012 denied disclosure of ACRs in terms of Section Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act. The PIO/(HQ) ahs also vide letter No. 34&35/ A3/ Estt.I/Pol/2012 dated 24.5.2012 denied information on Point No. 2 of the RTI application stating that as per proviso of sub-section (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, the information sought by the appellant relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.
3. Aggrieved with reply of the PIO, the appellant filed first appeal on 16.5.2012 before the FAA. The FAA vide order No. 65/SSP(HQ)/RTI/2012 dated 29.5.2012 upheld the reply of the PIO.
4. During the hearing the appellant states that his colleague Shri Gangadaran, Gr-III (Driver), Police Deptt, Puducherry had also applied for seeking information under the RTI Act seeking copies of his ACRs and Performance & Integrity Certificate for the year 2010, and he was given the information along with copies of particulars vide No. 34-35/RTI/A3/Pol/2012 dated 5.10.2012 of O/O the IGP, Puducherry. The appellant submits that he has not been treated impartially since information has been given to others concerning similar request.
5. The Commission vide its innumerable decisions has held that applicant’s own ACRs is disclosable information. The PIO is hereby directed to provide copy of appellant’s ACRs for the period from 2005 to 2011 free of cost within ten days of receipt of this order. In view of above submissions of the appellant that his colleague has been provided with the similar information by the PIO, which has been denied to him, the IG (HQ) will get the matter enquired into. The information sought for by the appellant is disclosable information, however even if the PIO erred in interpreting law, he cannot discriminate between the applicants. If it is correct that while on the other hand the appellant has been denied his ACRs whereas another applicant has been provided with ACRs, it is disturbing how this discrimination has been done. The IG Police (HQ) will get this matter enquired into by a Senior Police Official and take necessary action under intimation to the appellant. The matter is disposed of on the part of the Commission with above directions.
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri S. Vengadesan v. Police Department in Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/003338