Judgment:
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10101 o”
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10101 of 2013 DATE OF DECISION: MAY 10.2013 Avtar Singh .......Petitioner Versus State Information Commission, Punjab and another .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA Present: Mr.HC Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. <><><> TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.Denial of information to the petitioner under the provisions of the right to Information Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act') has led to the filing of the instant writ petition.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had submitted two applications of even date i.e. 11.12.2012 under Section 6(1) of the Act to the Public Information Officer, Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC), Amritsar. The precise information sought by the petitioner as would be discernible from the applications placed on record as Annexures P1/1 and P1/2 was in the following terms: Annexure P1/1 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10101 o”
2. 5 Particulars of the Shri Bhupinder Singh s/o Shri Mewa Singh information (Designation Guide) Place of Posting: required:- (Takht Sri Kesh Garh Sahib, Shri Anandpur (a) Places of Sahib). information 1. How many times he was placed under suspension during his entire service.
2. Under which charges he was suspended.
3. After how much times, he was reinstated.
4. What punishment was imposed on him (b) The while reinstating. period to 5. Under which law he was reinstated. From which the date of recruitment to 11.12.2012. information relates. Annexure P1/2 5 Particulars of 1. How many employees have so far been Information suspended. required:
2. What were their names and designation (a) and places of posting. Particulars of 3. How many out of them were reinstated, the and how many were discharged from service. information 4. Those who were reinstated, for how many times they were kept under suspension.
5. What were the grounds for suspension of each of them i.e. under what charges they were placed under suspension.
6. At the time of reinstatement, what punishment was given to them.
7. What were the reasons for reinstating them, i.e. under which law were they reinstated.
8. What are their orders of suspension and reinstatement: Note: This information is related to the suspended employees under Section 85 and Section 87 relating to Gurudwaras running under Shromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, Sri Amritsar. From 1st January 2011 from Ist December (b) The 2012.”
. period to which the information relates. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10101 o”
3. 3. The Public Information Officer, SGPC in terms of communication dated 23.2.2013 declined the information. The petitioner submitted two complaints under Section 18 of the Act before the State Information Commission, Punjab – respondent No.1 seeking its intervention in the matter and for supply of the requisite information. The complaints stand dismissed by the State Information Commission vide separate but identical orders of even date i.e. 17.4.2013, Annexures P4/1 and P4/2. It is such orders passed by the State Information Commission, Punjab, both dated 17.4.2013 that have been impugned in the present writ petition.
4. Mr.HC Arora, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that information relating to embezzlement or mis-appropriation of funds of the Government or any other statutory body, acts of omission or commission or the punishments imposed upon the employees of such statutory bodies would require to be disclosed in the larger public interest. Argument raised is that denial to provide such information would be against the very object of 'the Act' which, in turn, aims at promoting transparency and accountability in the working of the public authorities. Learned counsel has argued that denial of information sought for by the petitioner in relation to punishments awarded for corrupt activities including embezzlement and mis- appropriation of funds would not be exempted under Section 8(1) (j) of the Act. As such, while seeking the quashing of the impugned orders, both dated 17.4.2013, Annexures P4/1 and P4/2, a prayer has been made for issuance of directions to CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10101 o”
4. respondent No.2 to supply the requisite information. Towards such submission, learned counsel has even placed reliance upon a judgment dated 29.9.2010 passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) 120 of 2010 “Union of India v. Balendra Kumar”..
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard at length and pleadings on record have been perused.
6. In terms of the applications dated 11.12.2012, Annexures P1/1 and P1/2, the petitioner had sought information as regards one Bhupinder Singh son of Mewa Singh and in respect of all such other employees of SGPC who have so far been suspended, the grounds of suspension, the details of re- instatement and the punishments awarded to such employees.
7. Section 8 of the Act deals with exemptions from disclosure of information and Section 8(1)(j) of the Act which would be relevant for the controversy raised in the present writ petition reads in the following terms:
8. Exemption from disclosure of information – Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, - a) to i) xxxxxxxxxxxx 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 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10101 o”
5. justifies the disclosure of such information:”.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commr. & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.27734 of 2012, decided on 3.10.2012 had examined the scope and ambit of clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the Act in relation to information sought pertaining to show cause notices, orders of censure/punishment of employees and had observed as follows: “We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. 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 would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10101 o”
6. could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.”
9. As such, orders of suspension in relation to employees of the SGPC, grounds of suspension, reasons for re-instatement, punishments awarded etc. would qualify to be personal information which would stand exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. Undoubtedly, as per the statutory provision itself in a given case, it was open for the State Public Information Officer to disclose such information if the larger public interest justified the same.
10. It would be apposite to refer to the complaint submitted by the petitioner before the State Information Commission, Punjab regarding non-supply of information which was worded as follows: “Subject: Regarding Non-supply of information sought from Head Office of Shromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee Sri Amritsar, under the R.T.I. Act. Sir, It is submitted that I am Avtar Singh s/o Shri Sarwan Singh, Ward No.6, Mohalla Kurali Wala, Academy Road, Sri Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar. I had sought certain information from the Head Office of Shromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee under the R.T.I. Act, which has not been supplied to me by concerned officer even after the expiry of 30 days. While demanding information, as per rules, I had sent postal orders for `10/- also. I am submitting this complaint to you well in time. Two photostate copies CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10101 o”
7. of demanded information are enclosed. Therefore, kindly take appropriate action against the concerned officer, and I may be provided information. I shall be thankful to you.”
11. In the instant case, the petitioner had failed to establish any public interest which would merit the disclosure of the information sought. To the contrary, the State Information Commission has specifically noticed in the impugned orders dated 17.4.2013 that the petitioner had been called upon to disclose the public interest involved during the course of hearing to which he had responded that he wants to use the information sought in a Court case which is to be filed by him to challenge his suspension order. Clearly, the information sought by the petitioner was towards furtherance of a personal grievance and not in relation to any public interest.
12. Even the reliance placed upon the judgment in Union of India v. Balendra Kumar (supra) by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is mis-placed. In the facts of that case, public interest in relation to information sought had been established and the Central Information Commission while directing disclosure of information had returned a finding that the same relates to charges of corruption/mis-appropriation of Government money. The facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable inasmuch as the petitioner herein did not make out a case before the Public Information Officer or even before the State Information Commission as regards the information sought, disclosure of which, would be in larger public interest. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10101 o”
8. 13. I find no basis that would warrant interference in the impugned orders. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. ( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA ) MAY 10.2013 JUDGE SRM Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter?. Yes/No