UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAJ KUMAR GUJRAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF Raj Kumar Gujral filed a suit for a declaration to the effect that the order of termination of his services dated 1-2-1964 passed by Shri H. C. Joshi, Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry, Delhi, was void and illegal. The suit was contested by the Union of India, defendant, inter alia on the ground that the plaintiff was not a permanent employee but merely a temporary one and his services had been vaidly terminated under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Services) Rules 1949, It appears that the plaintiff wanted to summon the Development Commissioner, Shri L. S. Titus, inter alia with the following documents:

(2.) WHEN summons was issued the defendant claimed privilege and objected to the production of the said document. Shri L. S. Titus, Development Commissioner. Delhi Administration, filed an affidavit inter alia stating-" i have carefully read and considered the said document and have come to the conclusion that the said document is an unpublished official record relating to the affairs of the "state and that its disclosure will cause injury to public interest for the following reasons:

(3.) IT may be pointed out that in the application summoning this document the plain-tiff described it as 'order of termination' and in the affidavit filed by Shri L. S. Titus there was no allegation that the document had been wrongly described as 'order of termination' and, in fact, it was not so. The document was, however, produced in Court in a sealed cover pending decision on the claim of privilege by the Union of India. It appears that the plaintiff produced a document alleging that the same was a true copy of the order dated 31-1-1964. He also filed an affidavit stating that the original order was shown to him by Shri H. C. Joshi who also allowed him to take a copy thereof. Shri Joshi filed an affidavit denving that the plaintiff had ever been allowed access to the document. The trial Court felt that since the Union of India had not denied that the document filed by the plaintiff was a true copy, they should have another opportunity in this behalf. It, therefore, directed the Union of India to file an affidavit admitting or denying the correctness of the document. No such affidavit was, however, filed. The trial Court disallowed the claim of privilege on the grounds that- (1) copy of the order having been filed it was no longer a secret document: (2) the document could not be said to relate to the affairs of State; and (3) the defendant in claiming privilege in respect of the order had acted merely to avoid an inconvenient disclosure of an important piece of evidence which might be used against the defendant.