The New Indian Express: Madurai: Sunday, 2nd
November 2025.
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court noted that the information was public and not confidential.
Holding that disclosure of
RTI information cannot be treated as misconduct, the Madurai Bench of the
Madras High Court recently upheld a single judge’s order setting aside the
punishment of pay reduction imposed on a Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL)
employee for displaying RTI information related to recruitment on a company
notice board.
Dismissing BHEL’s appeal against the February 26, 2020 order, a division bench of Justices C V Karthikeyan and R Vijayakumar observed that the very issuance of the charge memo and the ensuing departmental proceedings were baseless. The employee, Aron K Thiraviaraj, was working as a Grade II crane operator at BHEL, Tiruchy. His wife had sought information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act regarding the 9th Artisan Examinations conducted by the company, which was furnished on September 29, 2011. The details were later found pasted on the Canteen 58 notice board, leading to a charge memo in January 2012 under Rules 60(16) and (27) read with Rule 51 of the Standing Orders, relating to unauthorised communication of internal information.
The bench noted that the information was public and not confidential. Since the company had voluntarily provided the details under RTI, it had accepted that they were open for public dissemination. The act did not harm BHEL’s reputation, and hence, no misconduct was proved.
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court noted that the information was public and not confidential.
Dismissing BHEL’s appeal against the February 26, 2020 order, a division bench of Justices C V Karthikeyan and R Vijayakumar observed that the very issuance of the charge memo and the ensuing departmental proceedings were baseless. The employee, Aron K Thiraviaraj, was working as a Grade II crane operator at BHEL, Tiruchy. His wife had sought information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act regarding the 9th Artisan Examinations conducted by the company, which was furnished on September 29, 2011. The details were later found pasted on the Canteen 58 notice board, leading to a charge memo in January 2012 under Rules 60(16) and (27) read with Rule 51 of the Standing Orders, relating to unauthorised communication of internal information.
The bench noted that the information was public and not confidential. Since the company had voluntarily provided the details under RTI, it had accepted that they were open for public dissemination. The act did not harm BHEL’s reputation, and hence, no misconduct was proved.
.JPG)
.JPG)
