Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2014 Supreme(HP) 124

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Sanjay Karol, V.K. Sharma, JJ.
State Bank of India - Petitioner (In all the petitions)
versus
The Central Information Commission & Another (In all the petitions). - Respondents
CWPs No.6675, 6676, 6677, 6678, 6679, 6680, 6681, 6682, 6683 & 6824 of 2013
Decided On: March 1, 2014

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Ms Devyani Sharma, Advocate, in all the petitions.
For the Respondents:Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate, for respondent No.2, in all the petitions.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that an employee has a constitutional and statutory right to obtain information about his own ACRs under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and there is no fiduciary relationship between the examining body and the examinee in this context.

Headnote:
Right to Information - Disclosure of ACR information - Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 8(1)(e) & (g) - Section 2(f) - Section 2(j) - Section 8(3) - Fiduciary relationship - Disclosure of ACRs to the concerned employee - Right to Information as a fundamental right - Disclosure of information recorded prior to the Act - Public interest in disclosure - No fiduciary relationship between the examining body and the examinee - Information relating to posting, transfer and promotion of clerical staff not pertaining to fiduciary relationship - Information relating to third party cannot be disclosed without affording opportunity to the concerned - Right of a citizen to seek information - No need to assign reasons for seeking information
Fact of the Case:

The applicant, an employee of the State Bank of India, sought information regarding his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The information was initially refused citing fiduciary relationship and exemption under Section 8(1)(e) & (g) of the Act. The applicant pursued the matter through appeals and the Second Appellate authority directed the appropriate authority to furnish certain information to the applicant. The petitions challenging this order were disposed of by a common judgment.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the applicant, as an employee seeking information about his own ACRs, was not seeking third party information. The Court also noted that the Act does not impose fetters on the supply of record, and an applicant is entitled to information without assigning reasons. The Court held that the information recorded prior to the Act could be supplied to the applicant, and there was no fiduciary relationship between the examining body and the examinee in this context. The Court emphasized the public interest in disclosure and the constitutional and statutory right of the employee to obtain the information sought for.
Issues: The issues involved the disclosure of ACR information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and the application of exemptions under Section 8(1)(e) & (g) of the Act based on fiduciary relationship.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that an employee seeking information about his own ACRs was not seeking third party information and was entitled to the information without assigning reasons. The Court emphasized the public interest in disclosure and the absence of a fiduciary relationship between the examining body and the examinee in this context.
Final Decision: The petitions challenging the order directing the appropriate authority to furnish certain information to the applicant were dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Karol, Judge

The issue, which arises for consideration in these petitions, is as to whether names of the Reporting, First and Second Review/Accepting Authority, authors of the Annual Confidential Reports (for short ACRs) of respondent Santosh Kumar Kaushal (hereinafter referred to as the applicant), can be disclosed to him under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, or not.

2. Applicant, who is presently posted as Manager (OSD) in the State Bank of India, The Mall, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as the Appropriate Authority), sought following information vide application dated 17.8.2010 (Annexure P-1):

“(i) Whether cognizance was given to Self Appraisal submitted by the Reportee: Yes/No

(ii) Name of Reporting Authority, Designation & Grade Scale:

(iii) Name of Reviewing Authority/Accepting Authority, Designation & Grade Scale:

(iv) Name of members of IInd Reviewing Authority/ Accepting Authority, Designation & Grade Scale.

(v) Score awarded by the Reporting Authority & Score reviewed by the Ist & IInd Reviewing Authority/ Accepting Authority in the following parameters.

No. Reporting Authority Ist Reviewing

Authority/ Ist

Accepting Authority IInd Reviewing

Authority/ IInd

Accepting Authority

Score Awarded Out of

Max. Marks Score

Reviewed/

Accepted Score

Reviewed/

Accepted

Out of

Max.

Marks Score

Reviewed/

Accepted Score

Reviewed/

Accepted

Out of

Max.

1 Part A 40 40 40

2 Part B 20 20 20

3 Part A 20 20 20

4 Part B 20 20 20

Total 100 100 100

vi) Adverse Remarks, if any:

vii) Date on which ACR as on 31st March, 1995 is written/reported: by the Reporting Authority.”

3. Vide communication dated 13.9.2010 (Annexure P-2), of the Central Public Information Officer & Assistant General Manager of the petitioner-Bank, applicant was refused information sought in terms of para (i) to (v) & (vii) (supra) for the reason that being fiduciary in relationship, the same was exempted from disclosure under the provisions of Section 8(1)(e) & (g) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Insofar as information sought in terms of para (vi), applicant was informed that there were no adverse remarks in his ACRs for the period in question.

4. Aggrieved, applicant preferred an appeal, which stood rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 4.11.2010 (Annexure P-3). Relentlessly, he pursued the matter before the Second Appellate authority and vide impugned order dated 24.10.2011 (Annexure P-5), the appropriate authority stands directed to furnish information to the applicant, to the following effect:

“Commission had heard both sides and on the ratio of the CIC order dated 27 May 2008 and 24 September 2008 directs respondent to provide information in respect of points ii, iii, iv and vi to the appellant. Information in respect of v) has already been furnished to the appellant. In our view there appears to have been a misreading of section 8(1)(3) of the Act by the CPIO and the first appellate authority. The fiduciary relationship, if at all, is between the employer and employee. The information which is expected to be kept exempt from disclosure is the information concerning the employee, in this case, the appellant herein. The exemption is from disclosure to third-party and certainly not to the appellant himself.”

5. The second Appellate Authority disposed of his appeals by a common order, which stands assailed by way of separate petitions. Since common questions are involved, these petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment. We have narrated the facts of the first writ petition.

6. It is not in dispute that applicant is seeking information from the appropriate authority with regard to his own ACRs recorded over different period of time. No third party information is sought for by him.

7. At the threshold, we may also observe that on 27.12.2013, Ms Devyani Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner-Bank, made a request for an adjournment for placing certain documents on record,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document