Internal file notings and deliberative records concerning disciplinary proceedings constitute personal information exempt from disclosure under privacy provisions. Absent a demonstrable, superior public interest, such records are protected, and the legislative proviso regarding information access does not override these substantive statutory exemptions.

JUDGMENT :

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.

“In fact, paradoxically, government is more open when it is less open”

Sir Humphrey Appleby in 'Yes Minister'

1. The State Public Information Officer of the Kerala Public Service Commission and the Appellate Authority constituted under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter RTI Act), and the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) are the petitioners in the writ petition, filed against the order passed by the Kerala State Information Commission.

2. The 2^nd respondent, who worked as Joint Secretary under KPSC, sought Ext.P1 RTI application seeking copies of the extract of the orders in File No.SS I (1) 162/14/GW, which relates to disciplinary proceedings initiated against her, alleging grave irregularities in handling cash, and that the physical balance of the cash did not tally with the book balance and a shortage of Rs.25341/- as found out by the Internal Audit Wing. Following this, the second respondent was suspended pending enquiry, and a memo of charges was issued. In the enquiry, it was found that the 2^nd respondent made false entries in the cash transactions, and a punishment of barring increment was imposed on her apart from the recovery of the amount determined as loss to PSC, and the 2^nd respondent remitted the amount with interest. An appeal was filed against the imposition of the punishment, which the Commission considered and rejected by order dated 13.10.2008.

2.1. On 7.4.2014, a petition was preferred by the 2^nd respondent, six years after imposing the punishment, to reconsider the matter. She also filed another petition to review the decision dated 13.10.2008, which the Chairman examined and rejected by order dated 16.01.2017. It is with reference to the above-mentioned file, i.e., File No. SS I (1) 162/14/GW that the information was sought for under the RTI Act through Ext.P1 application. The Information Officer gave Ext.P2 reply dated 9.05.2017, stating that the information requested cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act. Aggrieved by Ext.P2 reply, the 2^nd respondent preferred an appeal before the 2^nd petitioner, Appellate Authority, which rejected the same vide Ext.P3, dated 22.06.2017.

2.2. Aggrieved by Ext.P3, the 2^nd respondent preferred Ext.P4 appeal, dated 28.06.2017, before the 1^st respondent. The first respondent issued Ext.P5 order, dated 28.07.2018, directing the PSC to make available all the documents sought for, without referring to any specific document or information to be supplied, and also ordered proceedings under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. Ext.P5 order states that the denial of information under Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act was unsustainable, since the information sought related to disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant herself and consisted of materials which she would ordinarily be entitled to receive in the course of such proceedings. It was further observed that such records, when subjected to judicial scrutiny in disciplinary proceedings, are ordinarily produced before courts and are not treated as confidential documents. Further reasoning was that the exemption relating to privacy under Section 8(1)(j) could not be invoked, as the information was sought by the very person to whom the alleged invasion of privacy pertained, and that a person whose integrity or reputation is affected through disciplinary proceedings has a right to know the contents of the inquiry and related materials.

2.3. The Commission also relied upon the proviso to Section 8(1)(j), holding that since such information could not be denied to the Parliament or Legislature, the same could not be denied to the applicant under the RTI Act. It is submitted by the petitioners that the file note sought by the delinquent employee contains the notings and opinions of various officers and Members of the Kerala Public Service Commission, and that the same does not constitute a public document to which a delinquent employee is entitled to claim access under the