Information related to disciplinary proceedings and confidential reports of public servants is categorized as personal information and exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to issue appropriate orders against the third respondent under section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 by considering the representation, dated 02.07.2021 made by the petitioner within the time stipulated by this Court.)

1. The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent/ State Information Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Information, Government of Chennai to take appropriate action against the third respondent/Public Information Officer / Personal Assistant to Sub[1]Collector, District Collectorate Campus, Thoothukudi District, who had been shown as a respondent in her personal name, under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), by considering the representation, dated 02.07.2021.

2. The petitioner, had originally sought information under Section 6 of the Act from the District Collector, Thoothukudi to furnish the information about the disciplinary proceedings. An order had been passed under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules by the District Collector in letter No.Na.Ka.D2.2236.2014, dated 03.12.2014 against one Justin Chelladurai, who was working as Tahsildhar, Thoothukudi. The third respondent/ Personal Assistant to Sub-Collector, District Collectorate Campus, Thoothukudi District had denied to furnish the information by letter, dated 15.10.2020, stating that the information sought by the petitioner was personal information.

3. Then the petitioner had filed a first appeal before the second respondent/District Collector, Thoothukudi District on 29.10.2010. The second respondent had again refused to furnish the details.

4. The petitioner then filed a second appeal before the first respondent. Then the petitioner had also filed WP(MD)No.1353 of 2021, seeking a direction against the first respondent to dispose of the second appeal filed by the petitioner. In that writ petition, orders were passed. Thereafter, the first respondent had passed further orders. Finally, the information was given to the petitioner on 27.11.2021.

5. Now, the writ petition has been filed seeking to take necessary action in accordance with the provision of Section 20 of Right to Information Act, 2005, for providing information, after much delay.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel appearing for the first and third respondents, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent. The third respondent had been impleaded in her personal capacity.

7. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, he had stated that the information relating to any noting in the Annual Confidential Report or notices relating to disciplinary proceedings, cannot be divulged as they are categorized as personal information and exempted information as per Section 8 of the Act. It is noted that disciplinary proceedings if initiated against a public servant will have to be dealt with in manner to law. Third parties cannot have the privilege of seeking that particular information.

8. The third and second respondents had correctly refused the information sought by the petitioner. However, consequent to the order of first respondent, they were under compulsion to disclose the information and had done so.

9. Now, the petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking for the delay caused by the third respondent in providing the information, under Section 20 of the Act.

10. The said information should not have been granted. It had been held in 2014(14) SCC 794 in R.K.Jain vs Union Of India & Another that any noting in the Annual Confidential Reports are personal information and should not be disclosed. It would touch upon the integrity of the person and upon the service of the said individual. It was held as follows:

“14.On th