S N RAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of claim of privilege in Civil Writ Petitions No. 1457/74, 1311/74, 136/74 and 24/72, which, though made in the setting of different allegations, raise certain common questions as to the true legal position of confidentiality, its extent and the limit of judicial review of such a claim, particularly in the context of the recent decision of the Supreme Court on the question in the case of Raj Narain, AIR 1975 Supreme Court 365 (1) and as to the impact, if any, of the decision on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the earlier case of Sodhi Sukhdev Singh, AIR 1961 Supreme Court 493(2).

(2.) By C. W. P. 1457/74 certain civil servants working in the Posts & Telegraphs Department, who initially belonged to the Central Public Works Department, and had been working in the P & T Dept., on transfer of certain projects, which the CPWD had until then been handling for the P & T Dept., claim that, having regard to the manner in which and the terms on which their services were transferred to the P & T Dept., they would be deemed to have been absorbed in the latter Dept. and could not, therefore, be repatriated to their parent department. In the alternative, they claim that in any event subsequent to their transfer they were duly absorbed in their present office and arc in any case entitled !o be so absorbed and could not, therefore, be repatriated. The petition is resisted on the ground that the petitioners were never absorbed in the P & T Dept., either at the time of the initial transfer or at any time subsequent thereto and are, therefore, liable to be repatriated to their parent office. There is considerable controversy between the partics as to the manner in which the question of absorption and/or repatriation of these petitioners was considered, discussed and decided in the two Depts., as well as the Cabinet Secretariat and in particular whether a decision had been taken at a certain level at one time that, subject to certain conditions being satisfied, the petitioners should be air-orbed but she decision was eventually varied under the pressure of fresh recruits to the P & T Dept., who apprehended that if the petitioners, as indeed others similarly situated officers, were not repatriated their chances of promotion may be prejudicially affected. In support of their various contentions the petitioners made a requisition for the production of records of the two Departments which purport to indicate the terms on which and the circumstances in which the petitioners were transferred to the P & T Dept., along with certain projects, the process of examination of the question as to their absorption and/or repatriation at different levels from time to time, the exchange of notes and correspondence between the two Departments, the decisions with regard to the question taken at different times, the review of the matter at different levels including the alleged decision in favour of the petitioners by the Cabinet Secretariat. These requisitions are contained in C.M. 740/75 and C. M. 682/75. The plea for the production of documents was resisted, infer cilia, by a claim of privilege contained in two affidavits, one of Secretary in the Ministry of Works & Housing in relation to the CPWD and the other in the affidavit of Secretary in the Ministry of Communications in respect of the records of the P & T Dept. The claim of privilege in respect of both sets of documents is grounded on the allegations that the summoned docu- ments constitute unpublished records of which the disclosure will not be in public interest.

(3.) By C.W.P. 1311/75 the petitioner, a civil servant working in the CPWD, challenges an order by which the petitioner has been compulsorily retired on attaining the age of 50 years in exercise of powers conferred by clause (j) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules in public interest, infer cilia, on the ground that the order is vitiated having been made on the basis of material which could neither be said to be relevant nor germane to the question as to the desirability of compulsory retirement of the petitioner. It is al-feged that the petitioner has had a clean record of service; and that whatever minor lapses may have been there in the service record of the petitioner before 1974 stood wiped off when the petitioner was granted selection grade in May 1968 and was allowed to cross the efficiency bar in 1974. The petition is opposed and the impugned order is sought to be justified on the ground that it was made in public interest on the basis of the service record of the petitioner and was justified with reference to the material which was both relevant and germane to the question as to the liability of the petitioner to compulsory retirement. In particular, it is contended that on a review of the entire service record of the petitioner it was found that the same was generally poor and that such a conclusion would justify the impugned order. The contention of the petitioner was sought to be reinforced with reference to the confidential reports and other records relating to his confirmation, grant of selection grade and crossing of the efficiency bar, etc. The plea for the production of the aforesaid record by C.M. 553/76 was resisted by a claim of privilege on the ground that the summoned documents were unpublished records relating to the affairs of the State and their disclosure would adversely affect freedom and candour of expression of opinion in the discharge of public functions.