Z. KHAWZAWL Vs. MIZORAM INFORMATION COMMISSION AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel representing the petitioner as well as Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram representing the respondent No. 1. Also heard Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned Govt. Advocate, Mizoram representing the respondent Nos. 2 to 6. Way back on 27.04.2012 the petitioner was employed as a Muster Roll employee at Mizoram House, Silchar and was dismissed from service. On a challenge made to the order of dismissal, this Court had set aside the same by Order dated 3.9.2012 passed in W.P.(C) No. 54 of 2012. This Court had observed that since the dismissal had come about without hearing the petitioner, as such, a direction was made for taking a conscious decision on the issue of re -engagement of the petitioner as well as with regard to his prayer for regularization. Pursuant thereto, an order came to be passed on 25.5.2013 under the hand of the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, General Administration Department whereby a decision was taken that the petitioner does not deserve to be re -engaged. On a perusal of the Order dated 22.5.2013, it appears that while arriving at the said decision, the statements of 27 employees had been taken into consideration. Out of the said 27 employees, at least 16 of them, whose names have also indicated, had deposed that the petitioner while working as a Muster Roll employee used to be under the influence of alcohol even during office hours and he also used to intimidate his fellow colleagues.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that copies of the depositions of the 27 employees, more particularly the first 16 who have been named, were not made available to the petitioner, as a result of which, he made an application under the Right to Information Act before the State Public Information Officer on 1.7.2013. In the said application information with regard to copies of the statements collected by the SDO(C) Vairengte vide A.22017/5/2004 -GAD Sl. No. 8410 was asked for. The said application seeking information was responded to by the respondent concerned expressing inability to furnish the information as asked for on account of the reason that the information would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the employees concerned which is not permitted under Sec. 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005.

(3.) Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the First/Departmental Appellate Authority by indicating the names of the persons whose statement copies were being sought. According to the petitioner, the said appeal also stood disposed of on 13.8.2013 by denying the information sought for on grounds that none of the employees are willing to disclose the contents of their respective statements. Thereafter, the matter was taken up before the Mizoram State Information Commission, Aizawl by filing a second appeal under Sec. 19(3) of the aforesaid Act of 2005. The petitioner was once again denied information sought for on the premises that the information cannot be made available on account of the prescription under Sec. 8(1)(g), Sec. 8(1)(J) and Sec. 11 of the RTI Act of 2005. Constrained thus, the petitioner have instituted the present proceedings.