Documents relating to the appointment and discharge of police officers are not privileged under Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act unless their disclosure would affect national defence, public security, good neighbourly relations, or the determination and execution of public policies.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Ray, J. - Both these Civil Revisions have been heard analogously, because they involve the identical question of law, viz. whether the claim of privilege advanced by the State of 'Orissa who is the Petitioner in both these Revisions is justified or has been erroneously negatived.

2. The opposite party in C.R. 35/74, Jagannath Jena, filed Title Suit No. 25 of 1971 in the Court of the First Munsif, Cuttack for setting aside the order dated 9-6-1965 discharging him from the Police Training College; Angul where he had joined as a cadet Sub-Inspector of Police. The Petitioner impugned the order of discharge on the ground, inter alia, or mala fide on the part of the concerned authorities in passing the order of discharge. He also alleged that the authorities in considering the question of readmitting him and another discharged cadet Sub-Inspector, namely, Gagan Bihari Mohanty showed favour to the latter, since he was the nephew of the then Minister Shri Satyapriya Mohanty. After written statements were filed, the Petitioner called for certain documents from the Defendants under Order 11, Rule 14 Code of Civil Procedure. The documents called for were enumerated in the schedule annexed to that petition. The Defendants claimed privilege in respect of serial Nos. 1, 4 and 8 of the annexed schedule under Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act on the ground that the documents called for relate to the affairs of the State and that their disclosure would cause injury to the public interest. This privilege was claimed in an affidavit filed by the Inspector-General of Police (Petitioner No 2). This claim of privilege was rejected and, accordingly, the Petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 10 of 1973. This was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the trial Court for reconsideration of the question of privilege on the basis of an affidavit of the Secretary to Government of Orissa in the Home Department which was filed in course of hearing of the Civil Revision, since the Inspector-General's affidavit was not considered to be a proper affidavit required under law. On a reconsideration, the Munsif has again rejected the claim of privilege. Hence this Civil Revision.

3. Similarly, in the other, Civil Revision, the Petitioner, opposite party, Hemanta Kumar Jena, who had similarly been selected as Sub-Inspector of Police and bad joined as a cadet Sub. Inspector of Police at Police Training College. Angul was also discharged from the college on 9-6-1965. His representations against the order of discharge having failed, he filed the present suit for setting aside the order of discharge. He imputed in his plaint mala fide and malice to the concerned authorities who were instrumental in passing the order of discharge. After the Defendants-Petitioners filed their written statement, Plaintiff opposite party filed a petition calling for certain documents from the Defendants under Order 11, Rule 14 CPC and the Defendants claimed privilege in respect of serial Nos. 1, 4 and 8 of the schedule annexed thereto. They are the identical documents which were called for also in the other suit referred to above. The trial Court also rejected this claim of privilege and the Defendants came up to this Court in Civil Revision No. 11 of 1973. In course of hearing of that Civil Revision the Secretary to Government, Home Department filed an affidavit as the affidavit filed by the Inspector-General of Police was not an appropriate one, and, accordingly, the matter was remanded back to the trial Court for reconsideration of the question of privilege on the basis of affidavit of the Home Secretary. After remand, the claim of privilege has also been rejected. Hence this Civil Revision.

4. Out of the three documents in respect of which privilege was originally claimed, the claim is not pressed in respect of item No. 4. Therefore, the question to be considered is whether the Petitioners are entitled to the claim of privilege in respect of items 1 and 8.