PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER Vs. CHHATTISGARH STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has preferred this writ petition feeling aggrieved by the order dtd. 7/5/2018 passed in Second Appeal No.A/82/2016/Bilaspur by which respondent No.1 has directed petitioner to supply the information as sought by respondent No.2 herein.

(2.) Facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition is that respondent No.2 after her termination of service from the post of Civil Judge Class-II, submitted an application dtd. 5/9/2017 before the petitioner herein under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act of 2005') for supply of her annual confidential reports for the year 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner supplied the information to respondent No.2. Being dissatisfied with the information provided to her, respondent No.2 preferred first appeal before the first appellate authority on the ground that she has sought for entire annual confidential report whereas she has been supplied with only remarks and comments made in her annual confidential reports of the years 2014-15 and 2015-16. Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal vide order dtd. 7/11/2017 holding that ACR is a confidential document of the State, comes under the expression of "personal information" and providing of the copies of ACRs would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy as it has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. Aggrieved therewith, respondent No.2 preferred second appeal before the State Information Commissioner and the same was allowed vide order impugned recording that respondent No.2 is entitled to get the information sought by her because the provision of Sec. 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the Act of 2005 does not apply on the same and in effect, directed petitioner herein to supply the information as sought by respondent No.2 free of cost.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order impugned passed by respondent No.1 is arbitrary, erroneous and based on conjecture and surmises. He submits that the State Information Commissioner (Respondent No.1) has not properly appreciated the provisions of the Act of 2005, especially Sec. 8 (1) (e) and (j) nor properly appreciated the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dev Dutt v UOI and others, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725, in which emphasis was in providing information with regard to gradings and not the narrative/noting. What is required to be communicated to an employee is the entries, remarks and gradings in the annual confidential report and not the narratives and noting by authority concerned. Relevant portion of concerned annual confidential reports i.e. entries and remarks, have already been supplied to respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is seeking narratives and noting made by the authorities in her annual confidential reports, which are held in a fiduciary capacity and there being no demonstrable public activity or interest, disclosure of the same stood excluded under Sec. 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the Act of 2005. Notings etc. of the annual confidential reports contain the views and opinions of various authorities which are fiduciary in nature and the views and opinion, if made open, might antagonize the employee. Thus, the impact of direction of respondent No.1 to provide information, as sought by respondent No.2, is that petitioner would be required to supply such information disclosure of which is excluded under the provisions of the Sec. 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the Act of 2005. He next contended that though right to information flows from Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India, it is not an absolute right and the same is also subject to reasonable restrictions and no one claim absolute right to any information which is being sought. In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision in case of R.K. Jain vs. Union of India, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 119 and Union of India through Director, Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pension vs. Central Information Commissioner & P.D. Khandelwal, reported in 2009 SCC Online Del 3876.