The ACRs of a public servant are not private in character.

Likewise, according to Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, if
information sought is purely personal information without any

relationship to any public activity or interest then its disclosure could
be refused. It follows that disclosure of any information which is in
public domain, cannot be denied. 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 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 8396 of 2008
Decided on: May 19, 2008
State of Punjab and others
…Petitioners
Versus
State Information Commission, Punjab and another
…Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA



This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India challenges order dated 5.11.2007 (P-1), passed by the State
Information Commission, Punjab (for brevity, ‘the Commission’),
holding that Shri Faquir Chand Sharma-respondent No. 2 is entitled
to the information sought by him. The Executive Engineer, Provincial
Division No. 1, PWD (B&R), Patiala-petitioner No. 3 has been
directed to deliver copies of his ACRs for the period from 1.4.2000 to
31.3.2006 within a period of 15 days to him.
Brief facts of the case are that on 18.7.2006, Shri Faquir
Chand Sharma-respondent No. 2, filed an application under the Right
to Information Act, 2005 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), with the Public
Information Officer-petitioner No. 3 for supply of copies of Annual
Confidential Reports for the period from 1.4.2000 to 31.3.2006. The
Public Information Officer-petitioner No. 3 referred the matter to the
Appellate Authority i.e. Superintendent Executive Patiala Circle-I,
PWD (B&R) Branch, Patiala. After considering the matter, the
Appellate Authority vide order dated 8.8.2006 declined the request on
the ground that the information demanded by respondent No. 2 is
confidential and the same is exempted from disclosure under Section
8 of the Act.
Feeling aggrieved, Shri Faquir Chand Sharmarespondent No. 2 filed an appeal before the Commission.
Considering the importance of the issue involved, the matter was
listed for hearing before the full bench of the Commission on
12.3.2007, 6.6.2007 and 18.7.2007. The Commission framed the
following issue for determination:
“Whether an employee is entitled, under the RTI Act,
2005, to have access to his Annual Confidential
Reports?”
The petitioners took the stand before the Commission
that the information comprised in an Annual Confidential Report is
held by the State in a fiduciary relationship and in terms of sub-clause
(e) of Section 8(1) of the Act such information is exempt from
disclosure until larger public interest warrants to the contrary. It was
further pleaded that the information sought by Shri Faquir Chand
Sharma-respondent No. 2 since related to his personal ACR, the

disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or
interest and, therefore, clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the Act are
attracted. Reliance was also placed on Government instruction
bearing No. 1485-ASI-GI/7762, dated 1.3.1961, which postulates that
confidential reports are not to be communicated or shown to the
officer concerned except to the extent of communicating adverse
remarks. The Commission after discussing all the pleas raised by the
petitioners allowed the appeal filed by Shri Fquir Chand Sharmarespondent No. 2 vide order dated 5.11.2007 (P-1), which is subject
matter of challenge in the instant petition.
After hearing learned State counsel and perusing the
paper book we are of the considered with that there is no merit in the
instant petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. At the outset
it would be apposite to read provisions of sub-clauses (e) and (j) of
Section 8(1) of the Act, which are reproduced as under:-
“8. Exemption from disclosure of information. (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there
shall be no obligation to give any citizen,-
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
(e) information available to a person in his fiduciary
relationship, unless the competent authority is
satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the
disclosure of such information;

(j) information which relates to personal information
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.”
A perusal of Section 8(1)(e) of the Act shows that it
opens up with a non-obstante clause providing that there is no
obligation cast on the authorities to give a citizen any information
concerning the fiduciary relationship of another person. However,
the information may still have to be made available if larger public
interest justifies such disclosure. The Commission has rightly taken
the view when it observed thus:-
“ The purport of this clause on a plain grammatical
construction is that in a case where certain information is
available to a person (meaning thereby, a Public
Authority) in a fiduciary relationship is a relationship
akin to a trust. The holder of information in a fiduciary
capacity is a trustee and he holds the information for the

benefit of the cestui que trust (That is the beneficiary of
trust). Since the trustee holds the information for the
benefit of the person to whom the information relates,
the intendment behind the statutory provision (clause ‘e’)
is that it be exempted from disclosure unless the larger
public interest warrants otherwise. This clause, that is,
clause (e) would be attracted only when third parties
seek information pertaining to the beneficiary of the trust
in the hands of the Public Authority (holding information
as a trustee for the person to whom it relates). It is, thus,
seen that the necessary pre-condition for the applicability
of Clause (e) supra is that the Public Authority opts the
information as a trustee for the person to whom the
information relates. The Public Authority, is therefore,
expected to keep that information confidential so that the
interests of the beneficiary of the trust are not in any
manner harmed. The refrain against disclosure of
information of this nature can only be overridden where
the large public interest so warrants. In the case of an
ACR, however, none of the essential ingredients of
clause (e) exist. The Public Authority does not hold
information contained in an ACR as a trustee for the
employee concerned or for any other person. ……”
Likewise, according to Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, if
information sought is purely personal information without any

relationship to any public activity or interest then its disclosure could
be refused. It follows that disclosure of any information which is in
public domain, cannot be denied. 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 noncommunication 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.
For the reasons aforementioned, this petition fails and
the same is dismissed.
(M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE
(SABINA)
May 19, 2008      JUDGE

Print Page