Live Law: Chandigarh: Wednesday,
August 10, 2016.
The High
Court of Punjab and Haryana recently quashed an order denying information about
corruption cases against IAS, IPS, HCS and HPS Officers under the Right to
Information Act, 2005.
The Court was
hearing a challenge to an order passed in April, 2014, whereby the Haryana
State Information Commission had upheld an order passed by the State Public
Information Officer (SPIO) denying information to the petitioner, Mr. Subhash.
Mr. Subhash
had demanded information about the complaints and corruption cases against the
serving and retired IAS, IPS, IRS, HCS, HPS officers. He had demanded information
regarding action taken against them and details of withheld benefits like
increments, promotion, extension of service, reinstatement etc. despite
registration of cases. Names and designations of officers who granted service
benefits to the accused officers were also demanded.
This
information was however denied, observing that the information sought was
primarily between the employee and employer, and hence had no relationship to
any public authority or public interest. The SPIO’s order was upheld by the
Appellate Authorities, and the same was under challenge before the High Court.
The Court
noted that Mr. Subhash’s argument that the citizens have a right to know about
the action taken against public servants involved in corruption charges was not
taken into consideration by the Commission.
The Court
observed that the petitioner has not sought any personal information against
any officer. “General detail of the corruption cases pending against the
serving and retired public servants and as to whether in spite of registration
of such corruption cases, the service benefits to such officers had been given
or not and which officer had passed such orders were sought for. It is thus
apparent that what is being sought is the information relating to corruption
and it is not the information pertaining to a particular individual as such.
The respondent Commissioner, however, in spite of noticing the fact that the
appellant had raised this issue has not given any valid reason while upholding
the orders of authorities below and has only given a stamp of approval to the
same,” Justice G.S. Sandhawalia observed.
The order was
hence set aside, and the Commission was directed to decide the second Appeal
afresh.
.JPG)
.JPG)
