Media Projection of V. K. Pandian as No.1 IAS officer

Media Projection of Mr. V. K. Pandian as No.1 IAS officer does not hold any documentary Proof. It is construed as False Propaganda, exposed under RTI

In March, 2016, the Odia Daily newspaper “Sambad” covered a Comparative analysis of performance of few IAS officers following their ACRs and projecting Mr. V.K. Pandian as No. 1 IAS officer in rank among all IAS and IPS officers scoring 10 marks in each Indicator taken up for the study.  Accordingly its Sister Media “Kanak TV” covered same story showing the documents of their performance report which is still available in “YouTube”.

1.  Having seen the news covered with show of  copy of documents in  Media and out of curiosity,  I had filed RTI application dt. 26.3.16 to the PIO, Dept. of General Administration and Public Grievances, Govt. of Odisha seeking the following information to ascertain the fact  of reporting.

i.  Copy of   Annual Confidential Reports  (CCR) of last three years  of Sri V.Kartikeyan Pandian, IAS, secretary to  Chief Minister, Odisha, Sri Upendra Nath Behera, IAS, Addl.Chief Secretary, Odisha, Sri Bijay Sharma, IPS, D.G. Crime Branch etc. which has already  released to media.

ii. Details of procedure followed for preparation of ACR and approval made by the appropriate authority.

iii. Details of criteria taken up and procedure followed for assessing career / performance of an IAS /IPS officer which reflected in ACR.

iv. Details of ACR Reporting Authority for different type of IAS and IPS officers at different level in the administrative set up  of the State.

v. Details of legal provisions for disclosure of ACR or  maintaining its secrecy.

2.     On denial of information by the PIO and First Appellate Authority,  I made Second Appeal  in the office of Odisha Information Commission on 8.6.16.  praying for supply of information and imposing penalty on PIO for  denying information under section 20 of the RTI Act.

3.     The Commission registered  my case  as Second Appeal Case No. 1567/2016 and started  hearing of the case  from 18.10.19 onwards, after around 3 years of filling Second Appeal. The Commission heard six times and passed the order on 10.2.20 which is of bad taste.

4.      On first day of hearing (18.10.19), the Commission directed the PIO to show cause  for not providing information as per law, not  explaining reasons of refusal on point-wise  information, not making any effort to give the details  under section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act about norms, guidelines, notification. The Commission also directed Special Secretary and Principal Secretary, Dept. of GA & PG  to submit status Report  updated till 30.9.2019 with regard to section 4 of the RTI Act by taking notes  of section 4(1)(b)(v)(vii)(xiv) & (xv)  and Secion-4(1)(c )(d) & (e ) . 

5.     On day  of Second Hearing ( 8.11.19.) I  made  a submission stating  that information relating to ACR of IAS and IPS officers has not  been provided to me by the PIO  citing  the ground section 8(1)(j) & section 11 of the RTI Act.   

Section 8(1)(j) stipulates   “exemption of  information from disclosure which relates to personal information and the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.”

Section 11(1)  says “Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: 

Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party.”

 My further argument before the Commission is as follows

a.     On the ground of denial of information, I argued that the PIO has not sought opinion of third parties before taking such decision of non-disclosable of information. So, the PIO should be directed to issue notice to the third parties  to give  their opinion  relating to supply  of ACR under section 11 of the RTI Act.  Without taking opinion of third parties, the PIO can not deny the information.

b.     As  the  information sought  for  is already  in public domain and news  glorifying their performance  has  been widely covered  in both Print and Electronic media, the said  information must be provided in public interest  to  understand  performance of No.1. IAS officer under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

6.The PIO made counter-submission referring decision of Delhi High Court in W.P. ( C ) No. 4735/11 wherein  the Court has observed  that the ACRs can not be disclosed to any other employee as  that would  constitute third party information. The PIO further submitted   referring decision of Supreme Court  in the matter of Girish R. Deshpande  VS CIC and others ( SLP ( C ) No. 27734/2012 wherein it was as  under

“ The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects  are governed by the service rules  which fall under  the expression “personal information”, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity  or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which could cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual”. The Supreme Court further held that such information could be disclosed only if it would serve a large public interest”. 

I further  countered submission   of the PIO  that  following  this judgement  of  the Supreme Court, the information  about APR of Mr. V.K.Pandia must be disclosed  in public interest  which is already available in public domain.

7.The PIO also  submitted  that  the GA Dept. had never shared  this  information sought for  on ACRs/PARs( Performance Appraisal Reports)  of any officers  to any media / TV channel  because  such documents are purely confidential in nature. So, the information has not been supplied to anybody.

8. In respect of information about details of ACR Reporting authority , detaisl of criteria taken up and procedure followed for assessing career , the PIO supplied  copy of All India Civil Conduct Rules.

9. While passing final order , the  Commission opined that in the instant case the appellant  has not made  a bonafide  public interest in seeking information  the disclosure of  such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual U/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.  The case was disposed without any direction for supply of information.

 Analysis of the Case: Why it is a tasteless order ?

a.  From the  very beginning of the hearing of the case, I have persistently  made submission that as  the PIO has rejected  RTI application on the ground of section 11 without following procedure, he should be directed  to issue  notice to all IAS officers seeking  their opinion about disclosure of their performance report. But  the  Commission  Smt. Sashi Prava Bindhani consciously  remained  silent  and never  directed the PIO to follow  the procedure of section 11(1). Rather just mentioned in her order “ the PIO could have taken the views of the third parties in this particular case”.  

b.    Smt. Bindhani did not make legal interpretation of the law  i.e., Section 8(1)(h), when I have been constantly pleading  for  disclosure of  information by producing Kanak TV Visual     which is  already available in youtube. As Smt. Is not well-versed  about RTI Act and its legal interpretation, she  deliberately refrains from  doing her commission’s job and passed speaking order. 

c.      As the PIO stated  that the said information has never been disclosed  to any media, the Million Dollar question is raised how did Sambad and kanak TV  get  this  document ?

d.     At last it  is concluded  that   the Projection of Mr. V.K.Pandia as No. 1 IAS does not  substantiate any logic or ground to  believe. The People must reject it.

e.     Through out hearing of the case, Smt. Bindhani persuaded the  PIO for updating the suo moto disclosure of information under section 4(1)(b)(c )(d) of the RTI Act.  Till last, the PIO did not care  to comply. This matter  was also not  related  to my case. I got astonished Why  did the Commission bring this issue within ambit of hearing of my case. The whole exercise of Smt. Bindhani ended in fiasco.  The Commission also  did not pass any order in its  decision. Till today, the GA dept. has not updated suo moto disclosed information.

Pradip Pradhan

M-9937843482

Dt-27.5.20