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
