Question: Annual Confidential Reports

[alok_ver]

Dear All,

Hallo.

Pl. let me know whether certified copies of Annual Confidential Reports can be sought under RTI. I have just been denied the same with the observation that the information sought does not cover under clause j of sub section 1 of Section 8 of the said RTI Act..

Thanks & Regards.

Similar Threads which you may be interested into:

• Disclosures of Annual Confidential Reports (ACR) comes under Official Secret Act
• What do you think & feel about Annual Confidential Reports NOW Annual Performance Appraisal Reports
• Need Help: Non receipt of Annual Confidential Reports
• Information: Disclosure Of Annual Confidential Reports Under The Rti Act 2005
• DoPT Circular re Annual Confidential Reports (ACR's)

[sa8298]

Sponsorer

Yes, Certified copies of the Annual Confidential reports can be obtained through RTI, and the denial by the PIO is wrong. There are CIC decisions on the matter. I will try to quote the CIC decisions soon. You can go for first appeal.

[sa8298]

Annual confidential reports can not be denied to the individual on whom the

the ACR copies can not be denied to the govt. employee on whom the ACR has been written. however, it can not be denied to a third person. The decisions on this subject is as below:
Yes. The Supreme Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India and others (Civil Appeal No.
7631 of 2002, decided on 12.5.2008),a case filed before the advent of the RTI Act, held
as follows:
“We do not agree [with the submission of the learned counsel, that “a 'good' entry is not
an adverse entry and it is only an adverse entry which has to be communicated to an
employee.”]. In our opinion every entry must be communicated to the employee
concerned, so that he may have an opportunity of making a representation against it if he
is aggrieved.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that under the Office Memorandum
21011/4/87 [Estt.'A'] issued by the Ministry of Personnel/Public Grievance
and Pensions dated 10/11.09.1987, only an adverse entry is to be communicated to the
concerned employee. It is well settled that no rule or government instruction can violate
Article 14 or any other provision of the Constitution, as the Constitution is the highest
law of the land. The aforesaid Office Memorandum, if it is interpreted to mean that only
adverse entries are to be communicated to the concerned employee and not other entries,
would in our opinion become arbitrary and hence illegal being violative of Article 14.
All similar Rules/Government Orders/Office Memoranda, in respect of all services under
the State, whether civil, judicial, police, or other service (except the military), will hence
also be illegal and are therefore liable to be ignored.
13. It has been held in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India & Anr. AIR 1978 SC 597 that
arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution. In our opinion, the noncommunication
of an entry in the A.C.R. of a public servant is arbitrary because it
deprives the concerned employee from making a representation against it and praying for
its up-gradation. In our opinion, every entry in the Annual Confidential Report of every
employee under the State, whether he is in civil, judicial, police or other service (except
the military) must be communicated to him, so as to enable him to make a representation
against it, because non-communication deprives the employee of the opportunity of
making a representation against it which may affect his chances of being promoted (or
get some other benefits).
Moreover, the object of writing the confidential report and making entries in them is to
give an opportunity to a public servant to improve his performance, vide State of U.P. vs.
Yamuna Shankar Misra 1997 (4) SCC
17. Hence such non-communication is, in our opinion, arbitrary and hence violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution.
..
In our opinion, every entry (and not merely a poor or adverse entry) relating to an
employee under the State or an instrumentality of the State, whether in civil, judicial,
police or other service (except the military) must be communicated to him, within a
reasonable period, and it makes no difference whether there is a bench mark or not. Even
if there is no bench mark, non-communication of an entry may adversely affect the
employee's chances of promotion (or getting some other benefit), because when
comparative merit is being considered for promotion (or some other benefit) a person
having a `good' or `average' or `fair' entry certainly has less chances of being selected
than a person having a `very good' or `outstanding' entry.”
Next week, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in State of Punjab and others v State
Information Commission, Punjab and another [C.W.P. No. 8396 of 2008,Decided on
May 19, 2008] followed the Supreme Court’s judgment while deciding on a petition
filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India challenging order dated 5.11.2007 (P-1), passed by the State
Information Commission, Punjab holding that Shri Faquir Chand Sharma-respondent No.
2 is entitled to the information sought by him (copies of his ACRs for the period from
1.4.2000 to 31.3.2006).The court held as follows:
“The ACRs of a public servant are not private in character. In any case, when an
employee asks for disclosure of his own ACR the demand cannot be declined because
now all ACRs are required to be communicated to a public servant, whether adverse,
good, very good etc. In paras 19 and 20 of the judgment rendered in the case of Dev Dutt
v. Union of India and others (Civil Appeal No. 7631 of 2002, decided on 12.5.2008),
Hon’ble the Supreme Court has observed as under:-
“19. In our opinion, every entry in the A.C.R. of a public servant must be communicated
to him within a reasonable period, whether it is a poor, fair, average, good or very good
entry. This is because non communication of such an entry may adversely affect the
employee in two ways: (1) Had the entry been communicated to him he would know
about the assessment of his work and conduct by his superiors, which would enable him
to improve his work in future (2) He would have an opportunity of making a
representation against the entry if he feels it is unjustified, and pray for its upgradation.
Hence noncommunication of an entry is arbitrary, and it has been held by the
Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India [AIR
1978 SC 597] (supra) that arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
20. Thus it is not only when there is a bench mark but in all cases that an entry (whether
it is poor, fair, average, good or very good) must be communicated to a public
servant, otherwise there is violation of the principle of fairness, which is the soul of
natural justice. Even an outstanding entry should be communicated since that
would boost the morale of the employee and make him work harder.”
In the light of the aforesaid view of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, it has now become
obligatory to even communicate good or better reports to a public service or an employee
of the Corporation, Board or judiciary. Therefore, the controversy has been settled by
Hon’ble the Supreme Court.”
Grading of officers basing on ACRs
A Bench consisting of Information Commissioners, Professor M.M. Ansari,
Dr. O.P. Kejariwal and Ms. Padma Balasubramaniam in
Shri Arvind Kejriwal C/o Parivartan v Department of Personnel & Training held that
the chart which contained the grading of the officers and not their detailed ACRs can be
disclosed.[CIC/MA/A/2006/00204, 207 & 208,12 June,2008]
Last year, U.K. Information Commissioner gave a similar Decision:
London Borough of Southwark was asked for information about criteria used to
determine staff grades within the Hay job evaluation scheme. The council refused the
request on the grounds that it would prejudice the commercial interests of Hay Group.
The Commissioner decided that the council had incorrectly withheld the information and
that it should therefore be released.
[Case Ref: FS50078603,Date: 05/06/2007 ,Public authority: London Borough of
Southwark ]

[ambrish.p]

Dear Alok

Have u applied for copy of your own ACR or of someone else. Please post a copy of your RTI application and reply of PIO here, it will help members to guide u better.

Please also read:

https://www.rtiindia.org/forum/56588...tml#post138150
Disclosures of Annual Confidential Reports (ACR) comes under Official Secret Act

regards

[alok_ver]

Dear Alok

Have u applied for copy of your own ACR or of someone else. Please post a copy of your RTI application and reply of PIO here, it will help members to guide u better.

Please also read:

https://www.rtiindia.org/forum/56588...tml#post138150
Disclosures of Annual Confidential Reports (ACR) comes under Official Secret Act

regards

I have applied for copies of my own ACR's.

The reason given by the PIO for the denial is as below :-

The information asked for in respect of Sr. No. 4 of your application under reference can not be supplied due to the following reasons :-
(i) That the information sought does not cover under clause j of sub-section 1 of Section 8 of the said RTI Act.

Thanks & Regards.