Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 2332
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J.
Mohinder Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State Information Commission, Punjab and others - Respondents
CWP No. 2175 of 2014
Decided On : 28-11-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. C.S. Sharma
For the Respondent: Ms. Lavanya Paul
The judgment emphasizes the need to balance the right to information with other public interests and discourages indiscriminate demands for information that are unrelated to transparency and accountability.
Headnote:
Right to Information - Information Disposal - Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 4(1)(b) - Section 4(1)(c)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired employee, sought information regarding service benefits given to another employee. The respondent-Commission disposed of the case initially and later supplied the information. The petitioner filed a second complaint when he felt complete information was not supplied.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent-Commission had rightly closed the matter as the required information was handed over to the complainant during the hearing. The court also cited a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the importance of balancing the right to information with other public interests.
Issues: The issues revolved around the disposal of the petitioner's requests for information and whether complete information had been supplied.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of balancing the right to information with other public interests, citing the Supreme Court judgment. It found that the petitioner was only seeking unnecessary information at the cost of the State.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
G.S. Sandhawalia, J.
The petitioner challenges the orders dated 19.07.2012 (Annexure P-3) and the order dated 25.09.2013 (Annexure P-8) passed in separate proceedings by the respondent no. 1-Commission whereby, the case of the petitioner seeking information was disposed of and closed at the first instance and thereafter while noticing such fact, information was again supplied on 13.08.2013.
2. The petitioner, who is a retired employee of the Education Department, was aggrieved against an increment granted to one Sudhir Chand Sharma who had been appointed on the post of Clerk on 03.11.1987. His grouse was that some service benefits had been given to the said employee in the form of an increment/promotions etc. and thus, he initially had filed complaint on 22.12.2011 (Annexure P-1). In the said complaint, he had pleaded that there was a difference of name in the appointment letter and in the certificate which he had given and that the Punjabi test had not been passed within the prescribed period for early promotion.
3. Subsequently on 17.01.2012 (Annexure P-2), he filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding the action taken against the said employee and sought information regarding the difference between the name in the appointment letter and the type test certificate etc. This apparently came to his notice from the communication dated 22.04.2010 (Annexure P-9) that one increment had been granted to the said person. On account of the inaction on his application dated 17.01.2012 (P-2), he firstly approached the respondent-Commission wherein, the defence of the respondents was that vide letter dated 12.07.2012, the complaint had been sent to the DEO (Secondary Education) for inquiry against the said person. No report had been received from the said office and the complainant had been informed vide letters dated 31.05.2012 and 19.07.2012 (Annexure P-3) accordingly. The said documents were handed over to the Commission for perusal and record. Resultantly, in view of the information which was available on record, the case was disposed of and closed on 19.07.2012 (Annexure P-3).
4. The petitioner thereafter wrote to the DEO on 31.05.2013 (Annexure P-6) that copy of the information as per the letter dated 12.07.2012 be given and what action had been taken on the same. On 01.08.2013 (Annexure P-5), he wrote to the respondent-Commission that he had not been supplied the information. On 13.08.2013 (Annexure P-7), the Public Information Officer and the District Education Officer supplied him the result of passing the type test by the concerned employee which is dated 07.03.1990. The said information had been conveyed to the said employee Sudhir Chand Sharma by the Director, Education Board.
5. Thereafter, the second complaint was filed on the grouse that the information on the application dated 31.05.2013 (Annexure P-6) had not been supplied. Resultantly, the Commission closed the said complaint in view of the earlier order passed on 19.07.2012 (Annexure P-3) and the subsequent information which was supplied on 13.08.2013 (Annexure P-7). The same was also taken on record by the Commission. The Commission also noted that the required information was handed over to the complainant during the hearing in the Commission and accordingly, disposed of the case.
6. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complete information has not been supplied whereas, Ms. Paul, AAG, Punjab has defended the orders of the Commission that complete information has been supplied. It is further pointed out that a fact finding inquiry was got conducted from the Registrar, Education Department on 07.11.2014 (Annexure R-1) and even in the said inquiry, the petitioner did not associate himself with inquiry proceedings. The passing of the type test has been upheld and not termed as illegal or wrong. It is further pointed out that the said employee is working as Junior Assistant in the answering respondent-department and had been a
