UNION OF INDIA Vs. VIVEK BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR. Vivek Bhatia, respondent No. 1, is a Railway employee and was working as Chief Depot Material Supervisor, Stores Department, Diesel loco Modernization Works, Patiala. He had moved an application under right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) dated 3rd January, 2006 asking for norms for selection to group B post against the 70% quota, Marks secured, ACR for last 5 years and details of selection. The Central Public Information Officer in his reply dated 14th March, 2006 noted "you had secured the qualifying marks in the written test, but could not get qualifying marks in Part B, i. e. record of service and viva-voce". Disclosure of ACRs was also denied to the respondent No. 1 on the ground that the same was a part of confidential files and cannot be provided. This order was maintained by the first appellate Authority under the Act.

(2.) ON second appeal, the Central Information Commissioner by order dated 13th December, 2006 directed that in the interest of transparency and in view of Section 4 (1) (d) of the Act, the petitioner herein should show to respondent No. 1 all his Confidential Reports relevant for consideration of his promotion and all other relevant papers including file notings and also directed to file compliance report with the Commission within 21 days. The appeal was accordingly disposed of.

(3.) THE petitioner here filed a review application and the respondent no. 1 also approached the Central Information Commissioner stating that he had not been furnished the relevant records as directed in the order dated 13th December, 2006. By order dated 21st February, 2007, Central information Commissioner issued a show cause notice for imposition of penalty and once again directed the petitioner to furnish information in terms of its earlier order dated 13th December, 2006 by 9th March, 2007. It was also directed that in case deadline for providing information was not met, the Commission would be constrained to recommend serious action including disciplinary action against the officers of petitioner. Commission also directed that in case respondent No. 1 was to again appear before the central Information Commission, the petitioner herein would issue a privilege pass and also pay Rs. 500/- as daily allowance for the respondent no. 1s stay in Delhi.