STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SURJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the State of Punjab, the Director of Food and Supplies, Punjab, Chandigarh and the Collector, Kapurthala who are the defendants in a suit instituted by the plaintiff-respondent against them for a declaration that his retirement from service before he reached the age of superannuation was illegal and violative of various provisions of the Constitution of India. During the course of the proceedings before the trial Court the plaintiff filed an application requesting the Court to summon the Administrative Officer, Food and Supplies Department, Punjab, Chandigarh as a witness with a direction to him to produce in Court the character rolls and confidential reports maintained in the Department in respect of the plaintiff who, at the time of his retirement, was an Inspector in that Department, and of four other Inspectors who were junior to him but were retained in service. The defendants took exception to the production of those documents and claimed privilege under Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act on the ground (which is contained in the affidavit filed by Mr. B. B. Mahajan, Secretary to Government, Punjab, Food and Supplies Department, Chandigarh) that the documents were unpublished official records relating to "affairs of State" and that their disclosure would be prejudicial to the public interest inasmuch as it would adversely affect the functioning of the public service because officers of the Government will not express their opinion freely and frankly while making entries in the character rolls or confidential reports relating to their subordinates if they (the said officers) knew that their remarks were likely to be made public. The learned Senior Sub-Judge, Kapurthala before whom the case is aending disallowed the privilege on the ground that the documents above mentioned did not relate to "affairs of State". For his view he sought support from the Union of India v. Raj Kumar Gujral, AIR 1967 Punj 387 and Ram Gopal v. Union of India, 1972 Serv LR 258 (Delhi), from which he cited various passages and then observed:

(2.) IN my opinion, the petition merits acceptance inasmuch as the character rolls and confidential reports which the plaintiff seeks to have produced at the trial are documents, evidence derived from which cannot be given in view of the provisions of Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act which runs thus;

(3.) IN Governor General in Council v. H. Peer Mohd. Khuda Bux, AIR 1950 EP 228 (FB ). Khosla. J. , gave a restricted meaning to the expression "affairs of State" in the following words :