Ranchi: The Chhattisgarh High Court has directed the Family Court, Janjgir-Champa, to provide former employee Akram Khan with documents related to the departmental inquiry that resulted in his termination. The court held that the information sought by Khan was directly connected with his challenge to the dismissal and could not be denied by invoking exemptions under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The order was passed on August 31, 2026, and the High Court set aside the orders of the Public Information Officer (PIO), First Appellate Authority and Second Appellate Authority that had rejected Khan’s request for the information.
Why Did Akram Khan Seek the Departmental Inquiry Documents?
According to the High Court order, Akram Khan was working as a driver at the Family Court, Janjgir, when two departmental inquiries were initiated against him over allegations of misconduct involving seven charges.
His services were terminated on January 5, 2021, by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir-Champa.
Khan subsequently challenged the termination through a departmental appeal before the Registrar General of the Chhattisgarh High Court. He contended that he had not been given a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself during the departmental inquiry.
To effectively challenge the termination, Khan sought information and documents relating to the inquiry from the concerned department.
What Information Did Khan Seek Under the RTI Act?
Khan specifically sought the complete note sheets relating to Office Memo No. 443/two-12-21/2020, which formed the basis of the termination order.
His RTI application was rejected by the Public Information Officer on January 15, 2021.
Khan then filed a first appeal, which was rejected on March 10, 2021. He subsequently approached the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission by filing a second appeal.
The State Information Commission dismissed his second appeal on January 28, 2022.
The authorities relied on exemptions under Sections 8(1)(c) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act while denying the information.
Why Did Authorities Reject the RTI Request?
Section 8(1)(c) of the RTI Act provides an exemption for information whose disclosure could cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or a State Legislature.
Section 8(1)(j) deals with certain personal information where disclosure could cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
The authorities relied on these provisions to deny Khan access to the departmental inquiry documents.
However, the High Court examined the nature of the information sought and found that the exemptions did not apply in the circumstances of the case.
What Did the Chhattisgarh High Court Observe?
The High Court found that the documents sought by Khan were directly connected with his own termination and were required by him to effectively defend his case before the higher authorities.
The court observed that the information was neither confidential nor related to a third party.
It further noted that the documents were being sought by Khan in connection with his challenge to the January 5, 2021 termination order.
The court made it clear that the information was necessary for an effective defence in the proceedings concerning his dismissal.
RTI Exemptions Under Sections 8(1)(c) and 8(1)(j) Not Applicable
The High Court examined both exemptions relied upon by the authorities.
With regard to Section 8(1)(c), the court found that disclosure of the documents would not result in any breach of parliamentary or State Legislative privilege.
The court also rejected the applicability of Section 8(1)(j), observing that the information did not concern personal information of a third party in which Khan had no relationship or interest.
The court therefore held that the information sought could not be denied on the grounds of either legislative privilege or unwarranted invasion of a third party’s privacy.
High Court Raises Concern Over Fairness of Departmental Proceedings
The High Court also expressed concern over the manner in which Khan’s case had been handled.
It noted that the same authority that had passed Khan’s termination order had also decided his first appeal.
According to the court, such a process would not amount to a fair proceeding.
The court particularly pointed out that the dismissal order had been passed by the same authority that subsequently dealt with the first appeal, raising questions about the fairness of the proceedings before the Family Court, Janjgir-Champa.
High Court Sets Aside Three Earlier Orders
After considering the matter, the High Court held that the findings of the Public Information Officer, First Appellate Authority and Second Appellate Authority were contrary to the provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act.
The court consequently set aside all three orders that had denied Khan the requested information.
The High Court directed the Public Information Officer to provide Khan with the information and documents sought under the RTI Act after he pays the requisite fees.
Court Directs Authorities to Provide Information Within 30 Days
The High Court directed the concerned Public Information Officer to provide the requested information at the earliest.
The court said the documents should preferably be supplied within 30 days of receiving a copy of the High Court’s order.
The ruling allows Khan to obtain the departmental inquiry records that he said were necessary to pursue his challenge against the termination order.
Key Points of the Chhattisgarh High Court Order
- Petitioner: Akram Khan, former driver at Family Court, Janjgir-Champa
- Termination date: January 5, 2021
- Information sought: Complete note sheets relating to the departmental inquiry and Office Memo No. 443/two-12-21/2020
- RTI exemptions cited: Sections 8(1)(c) and 8(1)(j)
- State Information Commission: Rejected Khan’s second appeal on January 28, 2022
- High Court order: August 31, 2026
- High Court direction: PIO to provide the requested information after payment of requisite fees
- Time indicated: Preferably within 30 days of receiving the High Court order
Overall, the Chhattisgarh High Court held that RTI exemptions could not be used to prevent a former employee from accessing departmental inquiry records directly connected with his own termination and his effort to defend his case.
Read also: Who Is Justice Krushna Ram Mohapatra? Collegium Recommends Him As Next Chhattisgarh HC Chief Justice
