BHANU PARKASH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bhanu Parkash was a Head Clerk in the Office of the Civil Surgeon at Bhatinda. In September, 1963, he was dismissed from service under orders of the Director of Health Services, Punjab, Chandigarh, after the departmental enquiry had been conducted against him. Against that order, he filed an appeal before the Secretary, Medical and Health Department, Punjab Government, and the same was also rejected in March, 1964. Thereafter, he filed a civil suit challenging the order of his dismissal, which is pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge Ist Class at Bhatinda. During the pendency of the suit, he filed an application for summoning the file relating to the enquiry conducted against him and the same was ordered to be summoned by the learned Judge. According to the plaintiff, only a part of the said file was received by the Court in February 1968. He made another application saying that Part I of the enquiry file had been received, while Part II had not been sent by the Department. Thereafter, it is said that the learned Judge made an order for summoning Part II of the file as well. As a result of that order, according to the plaintiff, only a portion of Part II file was sent by the Department and some pages of the said file were still detained by them. When the plaintiff insisted that the remaining Part II file be also produced by the State, the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Medical and Health Department, on behalf of the State of Punjab, filed an affidavit claiming privilege regarding the said part of the file on the ground that it contained communications made in official confidence and they were part of unpublished officer records relating to the affairs of the State. It was also mentioned in the affidavit that their disclosure would result in injury to the public interest and security of the State and would be prejudicial to the proper functioning of the services in the State and would hamper free expression of views by one officer of the Government to another. This privilege was claimed under the provisions of Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act. This objection of the State was sustained by the learned Subordinate Judge, vide his order dated 25th June, 1968. Against that order, the present revision petition has been filed by Bhanu Parkash.

(2.) After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, I find that there is no merit in this petition. The entire enquiry file containing the statements of the witnesses along with the relevant documents and the report of the enquiry officer had been sent to the Court by the Department at the instance of the petitioner. What had been withheld were the papers which contained the noting by the various officers and the communications made in official confidence from one officer to another. The disclosure of by the Secretary of the Department, would not be in public interest and would materially affect the freedom and candour of expression of opinion in the determination and execution of policies.

(3.) While interpreting the provisions of Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Supreme Court in the State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh, 1961 AIR(SC) 493 , held thus :-