UNION OF INDIA Vs. PARKASH LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Director of Census Operations terminated the service of the petitioner under the temporary Service Rules on December 1, 1971. In the plaintiff-respondent's suit or the usual declaration claiming the termination of his service being illegal, he made application, dated January 22, 1975, for summoning seven document from the defendant-petitioner. The Secretary to the Central Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs filed an affidavit privilege in respect of the following two documents:

(2.) Learned coat for the plaintiff-respondent has not been able to dispute the fact that the original order, dated December 1, 1971, which has been actually served on the plaintiff, is itself signed by the Director, Census Operations. The grievance of Mr. I. B. Bhandari is that he wants the detailed noting potion of the file in which the whole history of the case and the opinion expressed by the various officers inducing the final opinion of the Director is available, so that he may be able to find out if there is any stigma cast on the plaintiff in the course of those notings. This cannot possibly be permitted. To allow nothings by the Government officers to be produced in Court would completely defeat the object of section 123 of the Evidence Act. If the officers making notes in Government files do not have the protection of the privilege which can be claimed under section 123 and if they know that whatever they say honestly in the discharge of their duties in the course of their official working may one day expose them in open Courts, it is bound to affect the freedom of expression of opinion of Government officers in the execution of their official business. That is precisely why their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the The State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhd Singh, A.I.R. 1961 Supreme Court 493-, reversed the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Sondhu Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab and A.I.R. 1960 Punjab 407,- and allowed the State to claim privilege under section 123 of the Evidence Act in respect of not only the preiminary inquiry held by the two Judges of the Pepsu High Court, but also the report of the commission on the representation of Sodhi Sukhdev Singh, and even the order passed by the Pepsu Government thereon. The Supreme Court observed in that connection that cases of privilege under section 123 may legitimately include the notes and minutes made by the respective officers on the relevant files expressing their opinion or making the reports and gist of official decisions reached in the course of the determination of the questions involved in the case. It was held:-

(3.) On the last hearing of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he was prepared to produce the relevant file which contains every-thing before the Court to satisfy itself about the genuineness of the State's claim for privilege. I had understood that the documents are possibly in the possession of the petitioner and would be produced today. Counsel for the parties have, however, informer me today that the entire file was produced in a sealed cover before the trial Court and has not been returned by the trial Court to the defendant-petitioner as the trial Court had dis-allowed the privilege. In the circumstances referred to above I consider it wholly unnecessary to send for the trial Court record. The judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the Sate of Punjab and others, v. Surjit Singh, 1975 (I) S.L.R. 433-, was cited before the trial Court, but was distinguished by the learned Subordinate Judge on the ground that it related to the character roll file and the confidential reports of Surjit Singh plaintiff- respondent in that case. There may be some distinction in that matter, but if the trial Court had carefully read the whole of that judgment and observations from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sodhi Sukhdev Singh's case on watch the whole decision was based, it would not have declined the privilege claimed by the State.