Disciplinary inquiry records sought by the concerned employee cannot be withheld under RTI Act Sections 8(1)(c) or 8(1)(j).

The petitioner, a driver employed in the Family Court, Janjgir-Champa, faced two departmental inquiries concerning seven misconduct charges.

His services were terminated by order dated 5 January 2021, which he challenged in a departmental appeal.

In order to support his defence, he sought the complete note sheets relating to Office Memo No. 443/2-12-21/2020, on the basis of which the termination order had been passed.

The Public Information Officer rejected the request on 15 January 2021, and the first appeal was dismissed on 10 March 2021.

The Chhattisgarh State Information Commission dismissed the petitioner’s second appeal under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, by order dated 28 January 2022, relying on Sections 8(1)(c) and 8(1)(j).

Since both writ petitions involved identical facts and issues, they were heard and disposed of by a common order, with W.P.(C) No. 3505 of 2022 treated as the lead matter.

Whether the information sought by the petitioner—namely, the note sheets forming the basis of his termination order—was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(c) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, on the ground that disclosure would breach the privilege of Parliament or a State Legislature.

Whether the requested information constituted personal information exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, or involved an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of any individual.

Whether the orders of the Public Information Officer, the First Appellate Authority, and the State Information Commission rejecting the petitioner’s request were legally sustainable.

The Court applied Sections 8(1)(c) and 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Section 8(1)(c) exempts information whose disclosure would cause a breach of the privilege of Parliament or a State Legislature, while Section 8(1)(j) exempts personal information having no relationship to public activity or interest, or disclosure of which would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy, unless larger public interest justifies disclosure.

The Court also applied the principle that information relating directly to an applicant’s own departmental proceedings and required by him to effectively defend a termination order cannot ordinarily be withheld under these exemptions, particularly where it neither concerns a third party nor implicates legislative privilege.

The Court held that the requested note sheets concerned the departmental proceedings and termination order relating to the petitioner himself.

The information was sought to enable him to effectively defend his departmental appeal and was neither confidential third-party information nor information capable of breaching the privilege of Parliament or a State Legislature.

Section 8(1)(c) was therefore plainly inapplicable.

Section 8(1)(j) was also inapplicable because the request did not seek personal information of a third party or information unrelated to the petitioner’s public employment; rather, it concerned the official record forming the basis of adverse disciplinary action against him.

Accordingly, the Court found that the authorities had misapplied both exemptions and that the rejection orders were contrary to Section 8 of the Act.

Respondent No. 4 was directed to provide the information sought by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, after payment of the requisite fees, preferably within 30 days of receiving a copy of the order.

The petitioner was directed to inform the Public Information Officer of the Court’s order.

Both writ petitions were accordingly disposed of.