TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 123
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp; Name of Reporting Authority, Designation & Grade Scale : (iii) Name of Reviewing Authority/Accepting Authority, Designation & Grade Scale : (iv) Name of members of IInd Reviewing Authority/Accepting Authority, Designation & Grade Scale. (v) Score awarded by the Reporting Authority & Score reviewed by the Ist & IInd Reviewing Authority/Accepting Authority in the following parameters. Sr No. Reporting Authority Ist    Reviewing Authority/  Ist Accepting Authority IInd    Reviewing Authority/ IInd Accepting Authority Score Awarded Out of Max. Marks Score Reviewed/Accepted Score Reviewed/ Accepted Out of Max. Marks Score Reviewed/Accepted Score Reviewed/ Accepted Out of Max. 1 Part A 40 40 40 2 Part B 20 20 20 3 Part A 20 20 20 4 Part B 20 20 20 Total 100 100 100 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7. At the threshold, we may also observe that on 27-12-2013, Ms. Devyani Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner-Bank, made a request for an adjournment for placing certain documents on record, which was turned down, for the reason that not only matter was part-heard from the previous day but also the point involved was purely legal. Needless to add, earlier adequate opportunity was afforded to the parties to complete their pleadings. In fact there is nothing new, which the petitioner wanted to place on record, which could not have been placed at the time of filing these petitions. 8. Inconsistency on a point of law, in the earlier decisions rendered by the Apex Court (two-Judge Bench), in Union of India v. Major Bahadur Singh, (2006) 1 SCC 368; and U.P. Jai Nigam v. Prabhat Chandra Jain, (1996) 2 SCC 363, now stands conclusively settled by three-Judge Bench of Apex Court in Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 566, wherein it is held as under : "6. We are in complete agreement with the view in Dev Dutt v. Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 725 particularly paragraphs 17, 18, 22, 37 & 41 as quoted above. We approve the same. 7. A thr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hers, (2006) 9 SCC 69, and K.M. Mishra v. Central Bank of India and Others, (2008) 9 SCC 120, and the other decisions of this Court taking a contrary view are declared to be not laying down good law."                          (Emphasis supplied) 9. Noticeably, in Dev Dutt v. Union of India and Others, (2008) 8 SCC 725, the Apex Court had held that every entry in the ACRs of a public Servant must be communicated to him within a reasonable period. Failure to do so adversely affects the Employee in two ways - (1) communication of entries makes him aware about the assessment of his work and conduct by his superiors, affording him an opportunity to improve his work in future; (2) affords an opportunity of making a representation against the entry which he feels is unjustified, enabling him to seek revision/upgradation. Non-communication of entry only smacks of arbitrariness, thus violating Article 14 of Constitution of India. Emphasis was laid on the need, importance and significance of communicating such entries, enabling the employee to seek redressal inte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ary? 2. Whether the information sought for cannot be furnished to avoid any erosion in the credibility of the decisions and to ensure a free and frank expression of honest opinion by all the constitutional functionaries, which is essential for effective consultation and for taking the right decision? 3. Whether the information sought for is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act?" 11. In Subhash Popatlal Dave v. Union of India and Another, (2012) 7 SCC 533 = 2012 (281) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.), the Court, however, has held that the provisions of the Act cannot have a overriding effect on the Constitution. Here, in the said case, Court was dealing with the, issue as to whether reasons could be supplied to the detenu, in view of Article 22 of Constitution of India. 12. In view of settled position of law, as it stands now, in our considered view, no fault can be found with the impugned order dated 24-10-2011 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Information Commissioner. There is neither any illegality nor any perversity. 13. It is urged by Ms. Devyani Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner-Bank that these petitions be kept pending, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device." 17. "Record" includes any document and file. Neither the definition clause, nor any provision of the Act postulates that information, prior to enforcement of the Act, cannot be supplied to a citizen. The only fetters prescribed are under Sections 8, 9, 11 and 24 of the Act. Even here no bar is provided for supplying information recorded prior to the enactment. In fact Section 6 of the Act empowers the citizens to seek information and Section 7 casts a duty and obligation upon the prescribed authorities to furnish the same, except where it cannot be so done, and that too on limited grounds and for assigned reasons. 18. In Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, AIR 2010 Delhi 159 (Full Bench), the Court held as under : "The source of right to information does not emanate from the Right to Information Act. It Is a right that emerges from the constitutional guarantees under Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution of India. The Right to Information Act is not repository of the right to i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Manipur and Another, AIR 2012 SC 864 = 2012 (286) E.L.T. 485 (S.C.) after taking into account its earlier decisions rendered by various Benches, including Constitution Bench, in People's Union for Civil Liberties and Another v. Union of India and Others, (2004) 2 SCC 476; Dinesh Trivedi, M.P. and Others v. Union of India and Others, (1997) 4 SCC 306; Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Govt of India and Others v. Cricket Association of Bengal and Others, (1995) 2 SCC 161; Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers, Bombay Pvt. Ltd. and Others, (1988) 4 SCC 592; S.P. Gupta & Others v. President of India and Others, AIR 1982 SC 149 (Constitution Bench); and The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain and Others, AIR 1975 SC 865 (Constitution Bench), held that : "11. It is, therefore, clear from the ratio in the above decisions of the Constitution Bench of this Court that the right to information, which is basically founded on the right to know, is an intrinsic part of the fundamental right to free speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The said Act was, thus, enacted to consolidate the fundamenta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x (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; (f) xxx xxx xxx (g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; (h) & (i) xxx xxx xxx (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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd well recognized sense, that is to refer to persons who act in a fiduciary capacity, with reference to a specific beneficiary or beneficiaries who are to be expected to be protected or benefited by the actions of the fiduciary - a trustee with reference to the beneficiary of the trust, a guardian with reference to a minor/physically/infirm/ mentally challenged, a parent with reference to a child, a lawyer or a chartered accountant with reference to a client, a doctor or nurse with reference to a patient, an agent with reference to a principal, a partner with reference to another partner, a director of a company with reference to a share-holder, an executor with reference to a legatee, a receiver with reference to the parties to a lis, an employer with reference to the confidential information relating to the employee, and an employee with reference to business dealings/transaction of the employer. We do not find that kind of fiduciary relationship between the examining body and the examinee, with reference to the evaluated answer- books, that come into the custody of the examining body. 42. The duty of examining bodies is to subject the candidates who have completed a cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iew expressed by the CIC that in the context of a government servant performing official functions and making notes on a file about the performance or conduct of another officer, such noting cannot be said to be given to the government pursuant to a 'fiduciary relationship' with the government within the meaning of Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005. Section 8(1)(e) is, at best, a ground to deny information to a third party on the ground that the information sought concerns a government servant, which information is available with the government pursuant to a fiduciary relationship, that such person, has with the government, as an employee. 11. To illustrate, it will be no ground for the Union of India to deny to an employee, against whom the disciplinary proceedings are held, to withhold the information available in the government files about such employee on the ground that such information has been given to it by some other government official who made the noting in a fiduciary relationship. This can be a ground only to deny disclosure to a third party who may be seeking information about the Petitioner in relation to the disciplinary proceedings held against her. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct, it is not a trade secret at all. It is known to all within the organization. Disclosure of their names, in no manner, would jeopardize their relationship either with the employee or with the employer. There is no question of compromise of any confidentiality in adopting such a practice. There is no threat to life of any person. There is also no question of invasion of privacy. 32. Information relating to posting, transfer and promotion of clerical staff,a Public Sector Undertaking (Bank) does not pertain to any fiduciary relationship of the bank vis-a vis its employees, within the dictionary meaning of the word "fiduciary". Also, such information cannot be said to be held in trust by the employer on behalf of its employees. (See : Canara Bank v. The Central Information Commission, Delhi and Another, AIR 2007 Kerala 225). 33. Information relating to third party, cannot be disclosed, even in public interest, without disclosing and affording opportunity to the concerned. {See : Centre for Development of Advanced Computing v. Brig. (Retd.) Ujjal Dasgupta and Another, AIR 2010 Delhi 132; and Arvind Kejriwal v. Central Public Information Officer & Another, AIR 2012 De....