Permod Kohli, J.

1. The petitioner is a doctor posted in Central Jail, Patiala. He was questioned the legality and validity of suspension order dated 5.5.2008 (Annexure P-23) placing him under suspension allegedly pursuant to a communication of respondent No. 3, a Law Officer working as Senior Deputy Advocate General. Punjab in the officer of Advocate General, Punjab. He has also assailed the opinion of the Board of Doctors of the PGIMER, Chandigarh dated 15.3.2008 in respect of one Narinder Kumar son of Dharam Kumar, an accused lodged in the Central Jail as an under trial for commission of offences under Sections 302/307 read with Section 34 IPC. While alleging motives to respondent No. 3, a Law officer has placed on record copies of certain communications addressed by respondent No. 3 to functionaries of the State in his professional capacity as he was engaged to represent the State in a case Crl. Mis. No. 3746 of 2008 filed by Jai Kishan for cancellation of bail of the petitioner-Doctor. Copies to these communications from respondent No. 3 to S.K. Asthana, SSP, Patiala, Mohammad Izhar Alam. IPS, Additional Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh are Annexures P-19/1, P-19/2 & P-19/3 respectively. During the course of the hearing if this writ petition, a Honble Division Bench of this Court, while noticing the aforesaid communications between the counsel and the functionaries of the State (Client) was of the opinion that such communications are privileged under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and accordingly vide order dated 8.12.2008 invited a debate on the question of privilege. Vide aforesaid order dated 8.12.2008, the Honble Division Bench issued notice to the Advocate Generals for the States of Punjab and Haryana, Assistant Solicitor General, Union of India, Senior Standing Counsel, U.T. Chandigarh, Chairman Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana and President, High Court Bar Association. Order dated 8.12.2008 is reproduced as under :-

It appears from the rival submissions that Senior Deputy Advocates General, Punjab, Shri Anil Sharma, Addressed a letter to inform his client State of Punjab about the Court proceeding of a case pending in this Court. That communication appears to be in the nature of a privileged one, which would be protected under the provisions of Evidence Act. Notwithstanding the aforesaid provisions, petitioner herein has impleaded Mr. Sharma as a party and also placed on record the aforesaid communication to attribute mala fide to him and to earn an order for revocation of his suspension. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that a copy of said letter was received under the provisions of right to Information Act.

Let a notice issue to learned Advocate Generals for the States of Punjab and Haryana, Assistant Solicitor General, Union of India, Senior Standing Counsel, U.T., Chandigarh, Chairman, Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, and President, High Court Bar Association, for 23.12.2008, to answer as to whether in view of the provisions of Right to Information Act, protection granted in regard to communication between counsel and client under Evidence Act has stood superseded."

2. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of Honble Division Bench, the matter being transferred to Single Bench on amendment of the Rules of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, was heard by me. There are three communications on record from respondent No. 3. Shri Anil Kumar, Sharma, Advocate/Sr. Deputy Advocate General, State of Punjab addressed to Sr. Superintendent of Police and Additional Director General of Police, respectively. The petitioner has particularly taken exception to letter dated 28.4.2008 whereby the Law Officer referred to the Court proceedings of the Crl. Misc.No.3746 of 2008 held on 24.4.2008. The relevant part of the letter dated 28.4.2008 (Annexure P-19/3) which has invited the objection of the petitioner reads as under :-

"... The Honble Court during the course of proceedings of the ca