85 1 eeme e 1 OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT IN THE HIGH CHANDIGARH CWPNo11136 of 2010 DATEOF DECISION November 032011 Tarlochan Singh Petitioner versus Limited and others C United India Insurance eeRespondents 0 40 CORAM HONBLEMRS JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY C5 Presentl Walia Advocate for the I petitloner MrDaRBansal Advocate for the Z respondentSe 2 DAYA CHAUDHARYJ I Z The limited prayer made in the present 00 petitlon is to supply the documents for submitting 7 the reply to the charge sheet Z The backgroundfacts necessary can be now Qm stated in brief as followsl The petitioner was working as Development Officer since the year 1980 He was issued charge sheet on 15112006 After issuance of charge sheet he moved an application to the respondents for supply ofcertain documents so as to make the complete and effective reply Vide communication dated 20102009 the petitioner was apprised that Rawat Seema 2014.05.28 10: 23 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 86 1 2 CWPN011360f2010 e 1 l by the petitioner would 9 no documents as be suppliede Another request for supplying the aforesaid was also rejected vide order dated 13112009 InqUlry was commenced without supplying the documentSe During the lnquiry proceedings the petitioner made requests to the Inquiry Officer also for supply of the said 1 documentSe Considering the request of the 0 the Inquiry Officer issued a 0 petitioner as genuine 0 PresentingOfficer to supply the direction to the I C5 documentSe Despitethe order of Inquiry Officer I the did not supply the aforesaid Z documents claiming to be privilege 0 Learnedcounsel for the petitioner submits I that the petitionermoved an application for supply r Z of certain documents including supply of the copy of the investigating report He further submits fn n that non supply of the copies of the documents to Z which public servant was entitled is violative of tl the principles of natural justice In support of his arguments learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment rendered in Jagdisunal Bhansali v United India Insurance CO e Ltcle 1994 SCT 4e Per contra learned counsel for the respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to the provisions of General Insurance Conduct Rawat Seema 2014.05.28 10: 23 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ll 87 aa0 3 CWPN011360f2010 P AppeallRules 1975 for short the Discipline and Rulesl to contend that the authority may claim privilege on the documents sought lIl case production of the said documents would be against the public interest or the interest of the Placing reliance on judgment rendered ln Svndicate Bank and others v Venkatesh Gururao j 2006 RSJ 6 learned counsel contends that Kurati r supplyof documents did not cause any prejudice 0 non 0 being violative of principles of natural justlcee 9 I have heard learned counsel for the I partiesand have also gone through the records of Z the casee 0 Rule 25101 of the Rules deals with I privilege According to the said Rules the Z communications or acts of Corporation 111 public interest enjoy privilege CJO The general principle 1S that if an 7 Z employee 1S served with charge sheet the Ll department lS required to supply all the documents or the documents required by the petitioner onthe basis of which he was charge sheeted Even if they are confidential cannot be said to be against the public intereste No doubt the Corporation has ample power to withheld the informationldocuments sought ln case disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the rights of the respondents Rawat Seema 2014.05.28 10: 23 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 88 4 CWPNo11360f2010 1 against the public interest In the present or case mere supplyingof certain documents sought by the petitionerdoes not suggest that supplying of them are going to harm any interest of public or Corporation The information sought by the petitioner relates to personal information the disclosure of which does not relate to any public 1 interest It has nowhere come from the r activity or respondents that supplying of the 0 mouth of the 0 documents sought by the petitioner would I C5 prejudicially affect the interest of public or the I Corporation Taking advantage of the Rule 25 of the Z Rules the respondents cannot claim the privilege that documents sought cannot be supplied because the aforesaid Rule gives a right to the authority t Z ln case supplying of such documents would harm the OO public interest or the interest of Corporation In such like circumstances the case of the petitioner em Z 1S squarely covered by a judgment rendered in tl Shatrughan Lals case supral The authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents is not applicable to the facts of the present case as ln that case the documents sought did not rely during the course of enquiry and cause any prejudice to the delinquent In view of the aforesaid discussion the present petition 1S allowede The respondents are Rawat Seema 2014.05.28 10: 23 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 89 5 CWrNo11360f2010 directed to supply the documents sought by the petitioner ln SO as to enable him to file his reply a and effective manner A direction is also issued to the respondents to commence the afresh after cosidering the reply by the enquiry petitioner lIl case it has already been commenced Ct November 03 2011 DAYA CHAUDHARYI KD JUDGE 0 0 I C5 I Z r I t Z e e P f 2 Z Ll l4 2Ill r t 1 Rawat Seema 2014.05.28 10: 23 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document