Times of India: New Delhi: Friday, September 11, 2026.
The Chhattisgarh high court has directed the family court, Janjgir-Champa, to provide a former employee documents related to the departmental inquiry that led to his termination. The court held that the information could not be denied under the Right to Information Act exemptions cited by authorities. The order was passed on August 31, 2026.
Why did the former employee seek the documents?
According to the court order, Akram Khan was working as a driver at the family court, Janjgir, when two departmental inquiries were initiated against him over allegations of misconduct and seven charges. His services were terminated on January 5, 2021, by the Principal Judge, family court, Janjgir-Champa. Khan challenged the termination through a departmental appeal before the Registrar General of the Chhattisgarh high court.
He argued that he had not been given a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself during the inquiry. Khan then sought information and documents relating to the inquiry from the department. He specifically asked for the complete note sheets of office memo No.443/two-12-21/2020, on the basis of which his termination order had been passed.
The Public Information Officer rejected his request on January 15, 2021. His first appeal was rejected on March 10, 2021. Khan then filed a second appeal before the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, which was dismissed on January 28, 2022. The authorities relied on Sections 8(1)(c) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to deny the information. The first provision deals with information whose disclosure could breach parliamentary or state legislative privilege, while the second provides an exemption for certain personal information where disclosure could cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
What did the high court observed?
The high court, however, found that the documents Khan sought were connected to his own termination and the high court, however, found that the documents Khan sought were connected to his own termination and were required by him to defend his case before the higher authorities. The court added that the information was not confidential or related to a third party. “The information sought by the petitioner clearly reflects that the said information was neither confidential, related to a third party nor intended for use against any third party,” the high court noted. The court went on to explain why Khan's request was directly connected with his challenge to the termination.
It said the documents were being sought for an “effective defence” before the higher authority in his attempt to challenge the January 5, 2021 termination order. The court also examined whether either of the RTI exemptions cited by the authorities could apply to the documents. It found that the information did not involve parliamentary or legislative privilege and did not amount to disclosure of personal information concerning a third party. “On due consideration of the information sought by the petitioner, in no way would it be an information disclosure of information which could cause breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature as is contemplated under the provision of Section 8(1) (c) nor would the information so sought for be an information which relates to a disclosure of personal information to which the petitioner has no relationship or has no interest or which could cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of a third party as is otherwise exempted under Clause 8(1) (j) of the Act of 2005,” the court noted.
The high court also raised a concern about the manner in which the matter had been handled. It noted that the authority which passed Khan's termination order had also decided his first appeal. The court said this would not amount to a fair proceeding. “Ironically the order of dismissal has been passed by the same authority who had decided the first appeal which again would not be otherwise a fair proceeding drawn on the part of the Presiding Judge, family court, Janjgir Champa at that point of time,” it added
The high court held that the findings of the Public Information Officer, First Appellate Authority and Second Appellate Authority were contrary to Section 8 of the RTI Act. It set aside all three orders. The court directed the Public Information Officer to provide Khan the information he had sought under the RTI Act after he paid the requisite fees. It said the information should be provided at the earliest, preferably within 30 days of receiving a copy of the high court's order.
.JPG)
.JPG)
