Public Information Under RTI Act Not Company’s Official Document; Display on Notice Board Not Misconduct: Madras High Court
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Madras High Court at Madurai, Division Bench of Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice R. Vijayakumar recently upheld a Single Judge’s order quashing disciplinary proceedings against an employee accused of posting RTI-obtained information on a company notice board. The Court clarified that such information, lawfully disclosed under the Right to Information Act, did not constitute an “official document” or relate to the company’s internal operations. It observed that the data was already in the public domain and its display could not be deemed a violation of standing orders. Consequently, the departmental penalty and proceedings were held unsustainable.
The dispute arose from disciplinary action initiated by Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL), Trichy, against an employee working as a Crane Operator, Grade II. The management alleged that the employee had engaged in misconduct by displaying information obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005, on the company’s canteen notice board. The information, originally sought by the employee’s spouse, concerned details of the selection process for the 9th Artisan Examinations, including the number of applicants, selected candidates, their States of origin, and categories such as ex-servicemen, women, and physically challenged persons.
Following the discovery of the notice board display, the management issued a show cause notice alleging unauthorized communication of official information. The employee denied the allegations, but a charge memorandum was later issued under specific clauses of the company’s Standing Orders, including provisions dealing with unauthorized communication of official documents and general acts of misconduct. A domestic enquiry was conducted, and the Enquiry Officer found the charge proved. Based on the findings, the management imposed a penalty of reduction of pay by two stages for one year with cumulative effect.
The employee challenged the penalty through a writ petition, asserting that the information was lawfully obtained under the RTI Act and that its display could not amount to unauthorized communication. The management contended that the act violated company rules and justified the disciplinary action, arguing that internal remedies before the Labour Court were available.
The Single Judge found no evidence linking the employee directly to the act of posting the information and held that the material disclosed under the RTI Act was not confidential or exempt from public access. The disciplinary proceedings were declared baseless, and the penalty was quashed. The company appealed, but the Division Bench affirmed the Single Judge’s decision, concluding that the information in question was public and not violative of the Standing Orders
It recorded that “the very purpose of the RTI Act was to facilitate the general public to obtain information to promote transparency and accountability.” The Bench further noted that information disclosed under the RTI Act could not be construed as unauthorized communication under Rule 60(16) or Rule 51 of the Standing Orders.
The Court observed: “It is not in dispute that the spouse of the writ petitioner had applied for information relating to the selection process for the 9th Artisan Examinations… This clearly indicates that the information was disclosed with the intent of promoting transparency in the selection process.” The Bench stated that such information, furnished under the RTI framework, “was not an official communication in the traditional sense, but rather public information shared with an applicant pursuant to the provisions of the RTI Act.”
It held that the information in question “cannot be classified as an ‘official document’ or as relating to the internal operations or business of the company within the meaning of Sub-clause (16) of Rule 60 of the Standing Orders.” The judges observed that no unrest or disturbance had arisen from the display of the information and that the issue gained significance only because of the company’s decision to initiate disciplinary action.
The Bench observed: “The respondent by voluntarily furnishing the said details had implicitly acknowledged that the information was not exempt from public disclosure and therefore that it could be disseminated to the general public.” Consequently, it held that the employee’s alleged act could not amount to unauthorized communication. The Court reasoned that once the company had lawfully disclosed the information under the RTI Act, it could not later treat the same as confidential for disciplinary purposes.
The Bench observed that “the learned Single Judge had correctly appreciated the facts of the case and rightly held that the very foundation of the issuance of the charge memo and the departmental proceedings were baseless.”
Thus, the Court upheld the reasoning of the Single Judge and recorded its agreement that “information lawfully furnished under the RTI Act cannot be treated as unauthorized communication under the Standing Orders.”
It concluded that the information pasted on the notice board “was not confidential, sensitive, or exempt from disclosure,” and that “it cannot be reasonably contended that the writ petitioner committed misconduct by displaying information that the respondent themselves had deemed suitable for public access.”
The Court held: “In view of these reasons, we hold that the learned Single Judge had correctly appreciated the facts of the case and had rightly held that the very foundation of the issuance of the charge memo and the departmental proceedings were baseless. The Writ Appeal therefore necessarily has to suffer an order of dismissal and accordingly, the same is dismissed.”
The Court also disposed of the connected miscellaneous petition, observing that no costs were to be awarded.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellant: Mr. A.V. Arun, Counsel for Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL), Trichy.
For the Respondent: Mr. T. Antony Arul Raj, Counsel for Aron K. Thiraviaraj.
Case Title: The Manager (TP-BPN), Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Trichy v. Aron K. Thiraviaraj
Neutral Citation: 2025: MHC:2252
Case Number: W.A. (MD) No. 471 of 2020 & C.M.P.(MD)No.3361 of 2020
Bench: Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice R. Vijayakumar
