1 wp-8384-10 mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8384 OF 2010 The First Appellate Authority & Joint Secretary to Government & Anr. ....Petitioners Vs. Shri Vinay Mohan Lal ...Respondents Mr. N.P. Deshpande, AGP for the Petitioners Mr. Vinay Mohal Lal respondent in person present. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. DATE: 30th November, 2010. P.C. Heard Mr. Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. V.M. Lal, respondent No.1 party in person. Respondent No.2 is not a necessary party and, therefore, no notice is required to be issued. 2. During the period from 2003 to December, 2004 the respondent No.1 who is an I.A.S., officer was holding the post of Chairman and Managing 2 wp-8384-10 Director of City & Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) and the Government of Maharashtra issued a charge sheet against him on 11th July, 2010 under Rule 8 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1969 (for short D. & A Rules). A departmental enquiry was conducted and the enquiry authority by his report dated 30th December, 2006 held that the charges leveled against the respondent No.1 were not proved. Three years later i.e. on 11th September, 2009 a copy of the enquiry authority's report along with a disagreement note stating reasons against the findings recorded by the Enquiry Authority was forwarded to respondent No.1 so as to enable him to exercise his right to submit his reply, which respondent No.1 did on 8th October, 2009. Admittedly, respondent No.1 has not heard anything thereafter from the Government of Maharashtra, but it appears that the Government has submitted its proposal to the Union of India, holding that some of the charges against the respondent No.1 were proved and, therefore, the State Government has proposed punishment under the D. & A. Rules. 3. In the meanwhile the respondent No.1 approached the Public Information Officer (P.I.O.) in the General Administration Department of the State Government by application under the Right to Information Act, 3 wp-8384-10 2004 on 12th January, 2010 and asked for the following information to be supplied to him under the said Act:- “1. Upto date notings in the file, including the relevant papers on the correspondence side, from which the Disagreement Note has been issued. 2. Upto date nothings dealing with my reply given to the Disagreement Note on 8th October, 2009.” 4. The P.I.O., by his communication dated 6th February, 2010 declined to provide the said information. The Respondent No.1 submitted his First Appeal. The first appellate authority passed an order on 10th March, 2010 and dismissed the appeal. Consequently the Second Appeal filed before the State Chief Information Commissioner, succeeded as per the order dated 9th July, 2010. The State Chief Information Commissioner allowed the appeal and directed that the information asked for be supplied to the present respondent No.1 and the information was directed to be given within 15 days. This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution impugns the said order passed by the State Chief Information Commissioner. 4 wp-8384-10 5. With the assistance of Mr. Deshpande, the learned A.G.P., we have gone through the reasoning set out by the State Chief Information Commissioner and though the order is based mainly on the ground of maintaining transparency in the administration and that the information sought for cannot be declined, it is pertinent to note that the information which the government denies to provide must fall in any of the clauses of Section 8(1) or Section 8 (3) of the Act. 6. The information sought for by the respondent No.1 is in respect of his own case i.e. the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him and it is not an information which falls in any of the exemption clauses set out in Section 8(1) under the heading “Exemption from disclosure of information” of the Act. . We do not agree with the submissions made by Mr. Deshpande that the State Government is holding the information sought for in its fiduciary relationship. If the State Government has recommended a particular penal action against the respondent No.1 he is entitled to know the material on the basis of which such decision has been taken by the State Government and the State Government cannot claim privilege on the same. The information sought for relates to the applicant's own case and it can not be denied to him. 5 wp-8384-10 7. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the challenge raised to the order passed by the State Chief Information Commissioner on 9th July, 2010 and k this petition must fail. The same is hereby rejected. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)