DPC proceedings not to be disclosed

[kushal]

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

BLOCK IV, OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI 110067

F.No.PBA/06/163
September 25, 2006


Appeal No. 115 /ICPB/2006

In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 – Section 19.

• Appellant: Shri. H.K. Bansal
• Public authority: Ministry of Communication & IT, Shri H.C. Jayal, Joint Secretary & CPIO, Shri. Yaswant S. Bhave, Spl. Secretary & Appellate Authority.

FACTS:

The appellant in this matter has sought information from the CPIO relating to the regularization in the post of Supdt. Engineer (Civil) and adhoc promotion to the grade of CE(C). Having not satisfied with the information furnished by the CPIO, the appellant preferred his first appeal dated 26.5.06 to the appellate authority which supplied all the information vide its letter dated 10.8.2006. Having still not satisfied with the information supplied, the appellant has filed his second appeal before the Commission on 11.7.06. Comments were called for wherein it is stated that in the information furnished by the CPIO and the appellate authority, all information sought for by the appellant has been furnished except the minutes of the meeting held in UPSC. In the rejoinder, the appellant has contended that the minutes of the meeting in UPSC cannot be withheld.

DECISION:

I have perused the application and also the information furnished by CPIO and the appellant authority. On receipt of CPIO’s reply, in his appeal, the appellant had elaborately dealt with the deficiency in the reply furnished by CPIO. The appellate authority has dealt with each and every point raised by the appellant and wherever there was a deficiency, correct information has been furnished to the appellant. The
only information which was not furnished relates to the DPC minutes and connected files. . As far as the DPC minutes are concerned, in Shri Gopal Kumar V Army HQ ( Appeal No CIC/AT/A/2006/0009 dated 13/7/2006, a Division Bench of this Commission has held “Departmental Promotion committees prepare their minutes after examining ACRs of employees due for promotion. Disclosure of the complete proceedings of the DPC and the grades given by various officers to their subordinates may lead to the disclosure of ACRs. Since ACRs themselves according to us are barred from disclosure, we hold that by inference, DPC proceedings should be similarly barred”. The same decision applies in the present case also and therefore, both the CPIO and the AA have rightly declined to disclose the documents connected with the DPC.

Let a copy of this decision be sent to the appellant and CPIO.

Sd/-
(Padma Balasubramanian)
Information Commissioner

[kushal]

In the followup, the commission stated in it's Decision No.382/IC(A)/2006
F. No.CIC/MA/C/2006/00237, Dated, the 23rd November, 2006

In a number of decisions, the Commission has held that ACRs are confidential documents, the disclosure of which is barred u/s 8(1) (d) & (e) of the Act. However, the proceedings of DPCs should be put in public domain after due
application of section 10(1) of the Act.

[maneesh]

The process of DPC is a decision making process and the decision arrived is based on some facts. In terms of RTI and as confirmed by CIC, it should be disclosed to take away chances of mal practises.

[kushal]

A decision which says that DPC minutes should not be disclosed.

In a number of cases, this Commission has decided that DPC minutes are exempt from disclosure. To this extent I uphold the decision of the CPIO and the AA. However, this exemption is not available in giving a list of recommended candidates.

[brijeshbhatt]

Tough this decision appears bit harsh, but I think it is necessary to maintain
discipline and provide sooth functioning of Govt. Deptt.

[karira]

In a recent decision, on 3rd August 2007, CIC has ruled that DPC proceedings have to be disclosed BUT ACR's, which might be evaluated by DPC, need not be disclosed.

Please see:

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_03082007_04.pdf

The Central Information Commission in a series of decisions has already
issued directions with regard dealing with disclosure of information of DPC
meetings under the RTI Act, 2005. In the case of Sh VK Dalal vs Deputy
Accountant General, Appeal No CIC/AT/A/2007/00298 of 21 May, 2007 we have
decided as follows:
“There are decisions of the Commission about disclosure of the
DPC proceedings (in the case of (i) Gopal Kumar Vs Army HQ;
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00069; Decision dated13.07.2006 (ii)
SK Sarangi Vs CBEC; Appeal No CIC/AT/A2006/0470; Decision
dated 9.01.2007 and (iii) BL Sinha Vs Ministry of Company Affiars;
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2007/00256; decision dated 03.05.2007). It
has bben decided in the past appeals that the DPC proceedings
shouled be disclosed to an applicant who might ask for the same,
while the Annual Confidential Reports, which might be evaluated by
such DPC, need not be disclosed”
As per Sec 19 (7) of the RTI Act “The decision of the Central Information
Commission or State information commission shall be binding.” The CPIO,
UPSC is, therefore, directed to adhere to these directions in dealing with
requests for information with regard to DPC.

[smnislam]

There is no reason why the DPC proceedings should be exempted from disclosure. After all it is a discreet exercise based on rules and facts. if the mamders act rationally without any bias there is no cause for them to worry or fear. I think all such proceedings should be posted on the official website or departmental notice board

[sngupta]

This is very good thread started by Karira. On viewing the posts on the subject it is clear that CIC is not devoted to RTI. I am sorry to say that the issue which needs favour of CIC is being favoured by Ministry of Law.

[vashisthvivek]

The Bureaucracy has been responsible for the culture of secrecy all over the year. Now the bureaucrats have hijacked the Information Commissions. Therefore, such decisions are bound to come???

[taurus]

From the various decisions of CIC now it is clear that while the entire DPC proceedings cannot be disclosed because it contains ACR gradings also (whose disclosure is exempted as per the various decisions of the CIC) the final recommendations of the DPC can be disclosed. It is better to put it (the DPC recommendations) on the website of the public Authority concerned as part of disclosure under Sec 4 of the ACT.

[karira]

Please also read the following thread:

Can I ask for proceedings of a selection Committee

[taurus]

The position regarding disclosure of ACR itself has changed after issue of Govt instructions dated 21.9.2007. As per this instruction the public authority has the discretion to disclose not only the ACR of the information seeker but also about others.

[vashisthvivek]

Originally Posted by taurus

The position regarding disclosure of ACR itself has changed after issue of Govt instructions dated 21.9.2007. As per this instruction the public authority has the discretion to disclose not only the ACR of the information seeker but also about others.

These instructions seems to be ultra-vires the Act. When, the Act do not bar disclosure of ACRs, the executive can not put riders to disclose the ACRs.

[taurus]

Yes. The Act has not exempted specifically the disclosure of ACR to 'anyone'. But the point is that it may fall under the exemption provided under Sec 8(1)(j). That is why the executive has issued the clarification. It is good as far as it goes. One may yet feel that it does not go far enough to reach the transparency standards aimed at by the Act! I dont think it can be dubbed as ultra vires on this score alone.

[vashisthvivek]

The Punjab Information Commission, the Tripura Information Commission and the Goa Information Commission have held that the disclosure of the ACRs is not exempted under Section 8 (1)(j). Therefore, after the enactment of the RTI Act, 2005, the ACRs are to be disclosed. Therefore, when the disclosure of the ACRs is not exempted under the RTI Act, the question of issuing such instructions does not arise. Therefore, I termed these instructions ultra-vires the Act.

[adil85]

kindly post the relevant decisions of all the commissions for the knowledge of the members.
adil

[adil85]

Can any learned member may kindly consider to send the draft of petition under section 18 of RTI act for lodging complaint with the CIC. Judicial department of west Bengal Government has accepted the fee of Rs. 300/- for supplying some infirmation.but now when the money has been deposited in RBI, I am running for the information from pillar to post but none appears to be bothered.
adil

[karira]

Originally Posted by adil85

kindly post the relevant decisions of all the commissions for the knowledge of the members.
adil

These are available as attachments to different posts in the thread:

Disclosures of Annual Confidential Reports (ACR) comes under Official Secret Act

Originally Posted by adil85

Can any learned member may kindly consider to send the draft of petition under section 18 of RTI act for lodging complaint with the CIC. Judicial department of west Bengal Government has accepted the fee of Rs. 300/- for supplying some infirmation.but now when the money has been deposited in RBI, I am running for the information from pillar to post but none appears to be bothered.
adil

adil, if it is the West Bengal Government, you will have to complain to WB SIC and not to the CIC.