Assets And Liabilities Of Public Servants Not Private; Service Register Cannot Be Completely Exempted U/S. 8 RTI Act: Madras HC

The Madras High Court has held that assets and liabilities of public servants are not private and therefore disclosure of the Service Register cannot be completely exempted under Section-8 of the RTI Act.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition calling for the records of the Respondent from the Service Register.

The single-bench of Justice C.V. Karthikeyan observed, "..The assets and liabilities are again not private. To a little extent, if punishments had been imposed owing to various circumstances, they could be termed as being private as disclosure of the same would put to stigma on the public servant. But once an individual accepts to join public service, he must accept that he lives in public glare and cannot avoid the general public from seeking details atleast so far as their service is concerned."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate R.Thirumoorthy while the Respondent was represented by Advocate C.Vigneswaran.

In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it was stated that the petitioners had sought information from the third respondent about the disproportionate wealth of an Assistant Engineer in the Water Reservoir Project Sub-Division, Krishnagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District and the same was not furnished. The petitioner then filed a first appeal under Section 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the second respondent but the information was again not furnished. Subsequently, the second appeal in the matter failed as well.

The petitioners then filed a petition under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act 2005 before the third respondent and sought information relating to the Panchayat Secretary relating to his service Register book from the date of his first joining as a Government Servant till 31.01.2023 and also about the movable and immovable assets in his name and in the names of his family members. The District Collector had given instructions to provide information, however, later an order came to pass that the information sought is related to the personal information of the individual which cannot be granted.

The Court at the outset mentioned that Section 8(j) of the Right to Information Act 2005 was amended by Act 2022 of 2023 exempting "personal information" from disclosure. Remarked that the information sought in the present petition is infact exclusive to the Respondent, it observed that while it is true that the assets and liability of a public servant will have to be necessarily disclosed and cannot be shielded from public scrutiny but there should be a reasonable restriction of the same.

"Such of the information which could not harm the career of the public servant could also be disclosed like the date of his joining the service, the date of promotion if any and the nature of work discharged by him. But there are certain information which necessarily have to be protected from being disclosed. Therefore, the materials available in the service register would have to be scrutinised and the reason why those materials are required also have to be verified and examined by the Officials concerned. There cannot be an order denying every information. Even if any information is sought to be denied or to be disclosed, then necessary reasons for such denial should be provided," the Court observed.

The Court concluded that the information sought in the present petition is not "private" in nature.

"The service register of public servant would contain details regarding the date of joining the service, the transfers which the person had suffered, the increments which had been granted, the earned leave which had been availed and also whether any punishments have been inflicted during the period of service. These details particularly the date of joining and the date of attaining the age of superannuation are certainly not private information," the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title:

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate R.Thirumoorthy

Respondent- Senior Advocate C.Vigneswaran, Government Advocate S.J.Mohamed Sathik and Advocate J.Ramkumar

Click here to read/ download Order: