Home » Court Judgements » High Court Judgements On Service Matters & Other Subjects
High Court Judgments

High Court Judgements On Service Matters & Other Subjects

More:  Supreme Court Judgements * Court Judgements on Service MattersLatest DOPT / CVC / RTI / MOF / CGHS / DPE / RBI  Circulars / Orders *  Vigilance Related GOI/CVC Notifications/Office Orders/Circulars * Right to Information Circulars/Orders/Decisions * CGHS Circulars/Empanelled Hospitals/Package Rates

 

UNMISSABLE

RECENT JUDGMENTS

  • Sexual Harassment
    Bombay High Court: Guidelines to Protect Identities of Parties Involved
    Bombay HC Judgement dated 24.09.2021 – P Vs. A & Ors.
  • Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI ACT, 2005
    Delhi High Court: It was held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court that “the legal position as settled by this court is that cogent reasons have to be given by the public authority as to how and why the investigation or prosecution will get impaired or hampered by giving the information in question.” [Exemption under Sec. 8(1)(h)]Delhi HC Judgement dated 05.02.2021 – Amit Kumar Shrivastava Vs. Central Information Commission, New Delhi
  • Section 8(1)(d)
    Delhi High Court: “On the basis of the above judgments, the following principles can be clearly gleaned:
    i) CPIO/PIOs cannot withhold information without reasonable cause;
    xxx       xxx
    v) PIO/CPIO cannot function merely as “post offices” but instead are responsible to ensure that the information sought under the RTI Act is provided
    xxx      xxx
    viii) Information cannot be refused without reasonable cause.”
    [Section 5(3), 5(4), 5(5), 8(1)(d); PIO/CPIO]Delhi HC Judgement dated 22.01.2021 – Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta (Erstwhile CPIO) Union Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Central Information Commission & Anr.
  • RTI Act
    Delhi HC Judgment dated 12.01.2021 – Har Kishan Vs. President Secretariat through its Secretary & Anr. –
    Delhi High Court: “12. This Court is of the opinion that whenever information is sought under the RTI Act, disclosure of an interest in the information sought would be necessary to establish the bonafides of the applicant. Non-disclosure of the same could result in injustice to several other affected persons, whose information is sought.
    13. Even otherwise, on merits, the information sought in respect of the names of the fathers and residential addresses of the candidates is completely invasive, and would be a roving and fishing enquiry. The said information which is sought is clearly protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act which provides that any such information shall not be provided which constitutes personal information and is invasive of the privacy of individuals. xxx                   xxx                   xxx
    15. For the act of the Petitioner having concealed the material facts including that his daughter had applied for appointment to the post of Multi-Tasking Staff, the petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the “High Court of Delhi (Middle Income Group) legal Aid Society”. … …” [Sections 8(1)(j); Disclosure of an Interest in the Information]Delhi HC Judgment dated 12.01.2021 – Har Kishan Vs. President Secretariat through its Secretary & Anr.
    Delhi HC Judgment dated 31.08.2020 – Dr. R.S. Gupta Vs. Govt. of NCTD & Ors. – Delhi High Court: “The disclosure of this information ex-facie has no relationship to any public activity or public interest and pertinently, the appellant is not able to explain or show any nexus between the personal information sought and the public interest involved, for seeking its disclosure. Thus, in our view, in absence of even a remote connection with any larger public interest, disclosure of information would be exempted as the same would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. Petitioner has thus failed to establish that the information sought for is for any public interest, much less ‘larger public interest’. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal.” [Sections 7, 8(1)(j); Larger Public Interest, Attendance Record]Delhi HC Judgment dated 31.08.2020 – Dr. R.S. Gupta Vs. Govt. of NCTD & Ors.
  • Gratuity
    An employee is an employee, casual, ad-hoc or part time, under the Payment of Gratuity Act: Delhi HC
    Delhi HC: “The definition of employee in the Act, 1972 also does not speak of any specific categories of the employees for its applicability, be it, regular, ad-hoc, part time, casual etc. etc. As for the payment of gratuity under the subject Act, to assess the quantum thereof, it provides for the definition of wages in sub-Section (s) of Section 2. … … :
    The combined reading of sub-Section (e) and sub-Section (s) of Section 2 of the Act, 1972 leaves no doubt that the gratuity is payable to the employees defined under the subject Act and is to be assessed on the basis of the wages / emoluments, within the ceiling limit as provided there-under.” – Delhi High Court Judgement dated 17.11.2019 – National Bal Bhawan Vs. Vandana, Roopa Sharma and Ors.
  • Electronic Voting Machine
    Delhi HC: Electronic voting machine is not information. – Delhi High Court judgment dated 17.12.2019 – Election Commission of India Vs. Central Information Commission and Anr. [Sections 2(f) & (i), 3, 6(1); Electronic Voting Machine]
  • Zero FIR
    Delhi High Court Judgment dated 29.11.2019 – Sudesh Yadav & Anr. Vs. The State (Zero FIR)
  • Sexual Harassment
    Delhi HC: “Consent, given under coercion, or without volition, is no consent at all.” [Sexual Harassment] –  Delhi High Court Judgment dated 25.11.2019 – Ajay Tiwari Vs. University of Delhi and Ors.
  • Section 22 of the RTI Act
    Madras HC: “… … the other procedures or regulations formulated by any other institutions, cannot prevail over the Act of Parliament and those Rules and Regulations of such individual institutions can never override the purpose and object of the Right to Information Act, 2005.” xxx xxx “Thus, the second respondent is entitled to receive the answer scripts as sought for in his application under the Right to Information Act, 2005. All such similar applications are also to be disposed of by the writ petitioner-Law University, as expeditiously as possible.[Section 22; Answer Scripts/Sheets] –  Madras HC Judgment dated 16.10.2019 – The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Chennai Vs. The Tamil Nadu State Information Commission, Chennai
  • Sections 18 & 19
    Delhi HC: “A mere reading of Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 clearly shows that the CIC cannot give directions to handover the possession of the plot to the respondent. Further, passing such an order would be beyond the scope of powers and functions of the CIC as stated under the RTI Act, 2005.[Sections 18,19 & 20; Giving judgments on organisation’s policy not envisaged] Delhi HC Judgment dated 10.10.2019 – Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr Vs. Krishan Kumar  
  • Voluntary Retirement
    Employee can withdraw request for voluntary retirement any time before its acceptance.
    Delhi HC: “… … the impugned order dated 04.07.2019 rejecting the petitioner‟s request for withdrawal of her application for voluntary retirement is quashed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner to have validly withdrawn her request for voluntarily retirement.”- Delhi High Court Judgement dated 27.09.2019 – Poonam Garg Vs. IFCI Venture Capital Funds Ltd. through its MD & Ors.
  • Unexplained Delay Of 13 Years In Initiating Inquiry Vitiated The Disciplinary Proceedings
    D
    elhi High Court: “In considering, whether, delay was vitiated the disciplinary proceedings, the Court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay was occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path, he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules but then delay defeat the justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations. It is further observed in the aforesaid judgment that if the delay is too long and remains unexplained, the court may interfere and quash the charges. However, how delay is too long would depend upon the facts of each and every case and if such delay has prejudiced or is likely to prejudice, the delinquent in defending the inquiry ought to be interdicted.” —  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 13.08.2019 – D.P. Sharma M/s BSES Rajdhani Power Limited & Anr. 
  • Departmental Proceeding under the Payment of Gratuity Act
    Departmental proceedings under the Payment of Gratuity Act can be initiated against an employee even after his retirement: Delhi High Court – Delhi High Court Judgement dated 30.07.2019 – J.P. Mahajan Vs. Governing Body, Kirori Mal College & Anr. 
  • Non-Filing Of Chargesheet Within 3 Months Cannot Be A Ground For Revoking Suspension Order
    Delhi High Court: “11. We may observe that there can be no hard and fast rule that in all cases where charge sheet is not filed within three months, of suspension, the same would mandatorily be revoked. The need for continuation of the same would have to be assessed on the facts of each case. Most relevant would be the nature and substance of allegations; the materials on which the same is founded; the position held by the concerned government officer i.e. whether he is holding a portion of authority and influence, or he is a lower ranked employee with little or no power to influence others concerned with the matter.
                xxx                               xxx
    14. The petitioner is a senior, highly ranked government officer and was occupying a high position at the time of his suspension. He was in a position to influence witnesses and tamper with the evidence. He has been released on bail. Pertinently, the petitioner has also not placed before us the order passed by the Court granting him bail which may have, if produced, thrown light on the allegations against the petitioner. Considering all these aspects as well, we are not satisfied that the suspension of the petitioner should not have been continued in the present case.” — Delhi High Court Judgement dated 05.07.2019 – Rakesh Kumar Garg V. Union of India & Ors.
  • Adultery
    Rajasthan High Court held that the State Government shall not initiate departmental proceedings on the basis of a complaint of any person against a Government servant alleging therein of the said Government servant having extra-marital relationship with another man or woman whether married or unmarried. – Rajasthan HC Judgement dated 07.03.2019 – Mahesh Chand Sharma s/o Shri Girraj Prasad Sharma vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.
  • RTI
    Delhi High Court:  “… … The only import of second proviso to Section 24(1) is that information relating to corruption and human rights violation would fall within the scope of the RTI Act. Section 8 of the RTI Act provides for certain exemptions from disclosure of information and the said provisions would be equally applicable to information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation. Thus, the concerned authorities would have to examine whether the information sought for by the petitioner is otherwise exempt from such disclosure by virtue of Section 8 of the RTI Act.
    23. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the CIC to consider afresh having regard to the observations made in this order.” [Sections 8, 19(3), 24(1); Section 2(1)(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993; Copy of IB Report] – Delhi HC Judgment dated 16.01.2019 – Ehtisham Qutubuddin Siddique v. CPIO Intelligence Bureau
  • Gratuity
    The employee having been allowed to superannuate in normal course, it was not permissible to withhold his gratuity under the PG Act: Delhi High Court – 
    Delhi HC Judgement dated 04.10.2018 – Vijay Krishan V. The State Trading Corporation & Ors. 
  • RTI
    Delhi High Court has held as under:-
    “… … the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only. The Appellate Authority is not the custodian of the information or the document. It is only a statutory authority to take a decision on an appeal with regard the tenability or otherwise of the action of the CPIO and, therefore, there is a conscious omission in making the Appellate Authority liable for a penal action under Section 20 of the RTI Act and if that be the scheme of the Act and the legislative intention, we see no error in the order passed by the learned writ Court warranting reconsideration.” [Sections 19(1), 20 of the RTI Act] –   Delhi HC Judgment dated 29.08.2018 – R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India >>> RTI Judgements
  • RTI
    Delhi HC: “Section 8 of the Act provides for exemption from disclosure of certain information and none of the provisions of Section 8 provide for blanket exemption that entitles the respondent to withhold all notings on a file.” [Section 8(1)(e)], ” …. the reasoning, that the notings or information generated by an employee during the course of his employment is his information and thus has to be treated as relating to a third party, is flawed.” [Section 11(1)] –  Delhi HC Judgement dated 12.02.2018 – Paras Nath Singh Vs. Union of India
  • SEXUAL HARASSMENT
    Delhi High Court: “15. Undoubtedly, physical contact or advances would constitute sexual harassment provided such physical contact is a part of the sexually determined behaviour. Such physical contact must be in the context of a behaviour which is sexually oriented. Plainly, a mere accidental physical contact, even though unwelcome, would not amount to sexual harassment. Similarly, a physical contact which has no undertone of a sexual nature and is not occasioned by the gender of the complainant may not necessarily amount to sexual harassment.
    16. … … Plainly, all physical contact cannot be termed as sexual harassment and only a physical contact or advances which are in the nature of an “unwelcome sexually determined behaviour” would amount to sexual harassment.” – Delhi HC Judgement dated 31.10.2017 – Shanta Kumar Vs. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) & Ors. – Delhi HC Judgement dated 31.10.2017 – Shanta Kumar Vs. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) & Ors.
  • RTI
    Delhi High Court has directed it to maintain a record of daily proceedings and upload it within three days of the hearing a case. [Sections 8(1)(j), 11(1), 19(3) –  Delhi HC Order dated 13.09.2017 – M/s SDB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors.
  • RTI
    No Absolute Exemption To The CBI From RTI Act –  Delhi HC Judgment dated 07.09.2017 – CPIO, CBI Vs. CJ Karira  [Sections 24 (1), 8(1)]
  • RTI
    Sections 8(1), 11(1); Personal Information of Third Parties – Delhi HC Order dated 04.09.2017 – RK Jain Vs. Central Information Commission through its Secretary
  • RTI
    HC upheld the CIC Order of January 18, 2017 with clarification to direct disclosure of information by redacting personal information pertaining to third parties. [Sections 8(1)(e) and (i), 11(1), 19(3); Personal Information of Third Parties] – Delhi HC Order dated 25.08.2017 – The CPIO, Department of Personnel and Training Vs. Central Information Commission & Anr.
  • RTI 
    Hon’ble Delhi High Court has upheld a CIC order directing the Centre to give IFS officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi a copy of the Intelligence Bureau (IB) report regarding alleged harassment and false cases filed against the whistle-blower for exposing graft during his tenure as forest officer in Haryana. – Delhi HC Judgement 23.08.2017 – CPIO, Intelligence Bureau Vs. Sanjiv Chaturvedi [Sections 2 (f), 24]
  • RESERVATION
    DoPT O.M. dated 13.08.1997 stands quashed. – Delhi HC Judgment dated 23.08.2017 – All India Equality Forum & Others Vs. Union of India through its Secretary and Others
  • Delhi High Court: “… … it would make no difference whether the privacy settings are set by the author of the offending post to “private” or “public”. Pertinently, Section 1)(x) of the Act does not require that the intentional insult or intimidation with intention to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe should take place in the presence of the said member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Even if the victim is not present, and behind his/her back the offending insult or intimidation with intention to humiliate him/ her – who is a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe takes place, the same would be culpable if it takes place within public view.” – Delhi HC Judgement dated 03.07.2017 – Ms Gayatri @ Apurna Singh Vs. State & Anr. 
  • NOT GRAVE MISCONDUCT
    HC: “Under the circumstances we hold that the misconduct, if any committed by the petitioner, is not a grave misconduct and thus we quash the penalty levied of 5% cut in pension for a period of six months.” – Delhi High Court Judgment dated 26.03.2015 – N. Bhardwaja Vs. Union of India & Ors.  
  • COMPULSORY RETIREMENT
    “… the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment and carries no stigma.” –  Bombay High Court Judgement dated 07.05.2014 – Mahesh Prabhakar Kamat Vs. Kamba Transport Corporation Ltd., Goa, & Others 
  • QUASHING OF CHARGES ON THE GROUND OF INORDINATE DELAY
    Inordinate delay in conducting inquiry can be a valid ground for quashing the charges’ – Delhi High Court Judgement dated 02.07.2012 – Union of India & Anr. Vs. B.A. Dhayalan 

High Court Judgements – Category-Wise

1. RTI
2. Service Matters
3. General

1. RTI

A. RTI HC JUDGEMENTS (SECTION-WISE)
B. RTI HC JUDGEMENTS (SUBJECT-WISE)

A. RTI HC JUDGEMENTS (SECTION-WISE)

Sections 2(f)

  Delhi High Court judgment dated 17.12.2019 - Election Commission of India Vs. Central Information Commission and Anr. (364.3 KiB, 1,916 hits)

Sections 2(i)

  Delhi High Court judgment dated 17.12.2019 - Election Commission of India Vs. Central Information Commission and Anr. (364.3 KiB, 1,916 hits)

Section 3

  Delhi High Court judgment dated 17.12.2019 - Election Commission of India Vs. Central Information Commission and Anr. (364.3 KiB, 1,916 hits)

Section 6(1)

  Delhi High Court judgment dated 17.12.2019 - Election Commission of India Vs. Central Information Commission and Anr. (364.3 KiB, 1,916 hits)

Section 7
— Delhi HC Judgment dated 31.08.2020 – Dr. R.S. Gupta Vs. Govt. of NCTD & Ors. – Delhi High Court: “The disclosure of this information ex-facie has no relationship to any public activity or public interest and pertinently, the appellant is not able to explain or show any nexus between the personal information sought and the public interest involved, for seeking its disclosure. Thus, in our view, in absence of even a remote connection with any larger public interest, disclosure of information would be exempted as the same would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. Petitioner has thus failed to establish that the information sought for is for any public interest, much less ‘larger public interest’. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal.”

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 31.08.2020 - Dr. R.S. Gupta Vs. Govt. of NCTD & Ors. (151.7 KiB, 1,038 hits)

Section 7(9)

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 04.12.2014 - The Registrar, Supreme Court of India Vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and Ors. (474.0 KiB, 16,044 hits)

Section 8 
Delhi High Court:  “… … The only import of second proviso to Section 24(1) is that information relating to corruption and human rights violation would fall within the scope of the RTI Act. Section 8 of the RTI Act provides for certain exemptions from disclosure of information and the said provisions would be equally applicable to information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation. Thus, the concerned authorities would have to examine whether the information sought for by the petitioner is otherwise exempt from such disclosure by virtue of Section 8 of the RTI Act.
23. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the CIC to consider afresh having regard to the observations made in this order.” [Sections 8, 19(3), 24(1); Section 2(1)(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993; Copy of IB Report] 

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 16.01.2019 - Ehtisham Qutubuddin Siddique v. CPIO Intelligence Bureau (370.6 KiB, 4,733 hits)

Section 8(1)(e) 
Delhi HC: “Section 8 of the Act provides for exemption from disclosure of certain information and none of the provisions of Section 8 provide for blanket exemption that entitles the respondent to withhold all notings on a file.”

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 12.02.2018 - Paras Nath Singh Vs. Union of India (266.0 KiB, 8,562 hits)

———————–

Section 8(1)(j)
— Delhi HC Judgment dated 12.01.2021 – Har Kishan Vs. President Secretariat through its Secretary & Anr.  – Delhi High Court: “12. This Court is of the opinion that whenever information is sought under the RTI Act, disclosure of an interest in the information sought would be necessary to establish the bonafides of the applicant. Non-disclosure of the same could result in injustice to several other affected persons, whose information is sought.
13. E
ven otherwise, on merits, the information sought in respect of the names of the fathers and residential addresses of the candidates is completely invasive, and would be a roving and fishing enquiry. The said information which is sought is clearly protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act which provides that any such information shall not be provided which constitutes personal information and is invasive of the privacy of individuals. xxx                   xxx                   xxx
15. For the act of the Petitioner having concealed the material facts including that his daughter had applied for appointment to the post of Multi-Tasking Staff, the petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the “High Court of Delhi (Middle Income Group) legal Aid Society”. … …”

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 12.01.2021 - Har Kishan Vs. President Secretariat through its Secretary & Anr. (1,018.1 KiB, 1,482 hits)

— Delhi HC Judgment dated 31.08.2020 – Dr. R.S. Gupta Vs. Govt. of NCTD & Ors. – Delhi High Court: “The disclosure of this information ex-facie has no relationship to any public activity or public interest and pertinently, the appellant is not able to explain or show any nexus between the personal information sought and the public interest involved, for seeking its disclosure. Thus, in our view, in absence of even a remote connection with any larger public interest, disclosure of information would be exempted as the same would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. Petitioner has thus failed to establish that the information sought for is for any public interest, much less ‘larger public interest’. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal.”

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 31.08.2020 - Dr. R.S. Gupta Vs. Govt. of NCTD & Ors. (151.7 KiB, 1,038 hits)

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 08.11.2013 - UPSC Vs. Pinki Ganeriwal (167.0 KiB, 7,709 hits)

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 31.10.2013 - Union of India Vs. Anita Singh (197.8 KiB, 7,184 hits)

Section 11(1) 
Delhi HC: ” …. the reasoning, that the notings or information generated by an employee during the course of his employment is his information and thus has to be treated as relating to a third party, is flawed.”

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 12.02.2018 - Paras Nath Singh Vs. Union of India (266.0 KiB, 8,562 hits)

Delhi High Court has directed it to maintain a record of daily proceedings and upload it within three days of the hearing a case. [Sections 8(1)(j), 11(1), 19(3); Personal Information of Third Parties]

  Delhi HC Order dated 13.09.2017 - M/s SDB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors. (225.1 KiB, 1,421 hits)

—————————— 
No Absolute Exemption To The CBI From RTI Act [Sections 24 (1), 8(1)]

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 07.09.2017 - CPIO, CBI Vs. CJ Karira (176.3 KiB, 3,120 hits)

Sections 8(1), 11(1); Personal Information of Third Parties 

  Delhi HC Order dated 04.09.2017 - RK Jain Vs. Central Information Commission through its Secretary (70.9 KiB, 1,324 hits)

——————-

HC upheld the CIC Order of January 18, 2017 with clarification to direct disclosure of information by redacting personal information pertaining to third parties. [Sections 8(1)(e) and (i), 11(1), 19(3); Personal Information of Third Parties] 

  Delhi HC Order dated 25.08.2017 - The CPIO, Department of Personnel and Training Vs. Central Information Commission & Anr. (232.1 KiB, 1,456 hits)

   
 ——————
Hon’ble Delhi High Court has upheld a CIC order directing the Centre to give IFS officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi a copy of the Intelligence Bureau (IB) report regarding alleged harassment and false cases filed against the whistle-blower for exposing graft during his tenure as forest officer in Haryana. 

  Delhi HC Judgement 23.08.2017 - CPIO, Intelligence Bureau Vs. Sanjiv Chaturvedi (448.0 KiB, 1,441 hits)

Sections 18 & 19

Delhi HC: “A mere reading of Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 clearly shows that the CIC cannot give directions to handover the possession of the plot to the respondent. Further, passing such an order would be beyond the scope of powers and functions of the CIC as stated under the RTI Act, 2005.”[Sections 18,19 & 20; Giving judgments on organisation’s policy not envisaged]

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 10.10.2019 - Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr Vs. Krishan Kumar (463.3 KiB, 2,360 hits)


Section 19(3)
Delhi High Court:  “… … The only import of second proviso to Section 24(1) is that information relating to corruption and human rights violation would fall within the scope of the RTI Act. Section 8 of the RTI Act provides for certain exemptions from disclosure of information and the said provisions would be equally applicable to information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation. Thus, the concerned authorities would have to examine whether the information sought for by the petitioner is otherwise exempt from such disclosure by virtue of Section 8 of the RTI Act.
23. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the CIC to consider afresh having regard to the observations made in this order.” [Sections 8, 19(3), 24(1); Section 2(1)(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993; Copy of IB Report] 

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 16.01.2019 - Ehtisham Qutubuddin Siddique v. CPIO Intelligence Bureau (370.6 KiB, 4,733 hits)

Section 20

Delhi High Court has held as under:-
“… … the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only. The Appellate Authority is not the custodian of the information or the document. It is only a statutory authority to take a decision on an appeal with regard the tenability or otherwise of the action of the CPIO and, therefore, there is a conscious omission in making the Appellate Authority liable for a penal action under Section 20 of the RTI Act and if that be the scheme of the Act and the legislative intention, we see no error in the order passed by the learned writ Court warranting reconsideration.” [Sections 19(1), 20 of the RTI Act]

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 29.08.2018 - R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India (375.0 KiB, 5,975 hits)

Delhi High Court: “8. The response to the various queries “it is an institute matter”, neither answers the queries nor renders an explanation claiming exemption from providing information.
9. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the CIC has not erred in returning a finding that information sought has not been provided to the respondent No.2. No cogent explanation has been rendered for non-supply of the information. Thus, the order of the CIC dated 22.11.2016 cannot be faulted.”

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 24.01.2017 - B.B. Dash Vs. Central Information Commission and Anr. (572.5 KiB, 3,306 hits)

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 20.02.2014 - Union of India Vs. Praveen Gupta (67.0 KiB, 7,130 hits)

 Section 22

Madras HC: “… … the other procedures or regulations formulated by any other institutions, cannot prevail over the Act of Parliament and those Rules and Regulations of such individual institutions can never override the purpose and object of the Right to Information Act, 2005.” xxx xxx “Thus, the second respondent is entitled to receive the answer scripts as sought for in his application under the Right to Information Act, 2005. All such similar applications are also to be disposed of by the writ petitioner-Law University, as expeditiously as possible.” [Section 22; Answer Scripts/Sheets]

  Madras HC Judgment dated 16.10.2019 - The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Chennai Vs. The Tamil Nadu State Information Commission, Chennai (234.3 KiB, 2,391 hits)

Section 24(1) 
Delhi High Court:  “… … The only import of second proviso to Section 24(1) is that information relating to corruption and human rights violation would fall within the scope of the RTI Act. Section 8 of the RTI Act provides for certain exemptions from disclosure of information and the said provisions would be equally applicable to information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation. Thus, the concerned authorities would have to examine whether the information sought for by the petitioner is otherwise exempt from such disclosure by virtue of Section 8 of the RTI Act.
23. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the CIC to consider afresh having regard to the observations made in this order.” [Sections 8, 19(3), 24(1); Section 2(1)(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993; Copy of IB Report] 

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 16.01.2019 - Ehtisham Qutubuddin Siddique v. CPIO Intelligence Bureau (370.6 KiB, 4,733 hits)

B. RTI HC JUDGEMENTS (SUBJECT-WISE)

Attendance Record * Candidates’ Particulars & Disclosure of Interest in the Information * Electronic Voting Machine * Larger Public Interest

Attendance Record
— Delhi HC Judgment dated 31.08.2020 – Dr. R.S. Gupta Vs. Govt. of NCTD & Ors. – Delhi High Court: “The disclosure of this information ex-facie has no relationship to any public activity or public interest and pertinently, the appellant is not able to explain or show any nexus between the personal information sought and the public interest involved, for seeking its disclosure. Thus, in our view, in absence of even a remote connection with any larger public interest, disclosure of information would be exempted as the same would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. Petitioner has thus failed to establish that the information sought for is for any public interest, much less ‘larger public interest’. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal.”

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 31.08.2020 - Dr. R.S. Gupta Vs. Govt. of NCTD & Ors. (151.7 KiB, 1,038 hits)

Candidates’ Particulars & Disclosure of Interest in the Information 
— Delhi HC Judgment dated 12.01.2021 – Har Kishan Vs. President Secretariat through its Secretary & Anr. – Delhi High Court: “12. This Court is of the opinion that whenever information is sought under the RTI Act, disclosure of an interest in the information sought would be necessary to establish the bonafides of the applicant. Non-disclosure of the same could result in injustice to several other affected persons, whose information is sought.
13. E
ven otherwise, on merits, the information sought in respect of the names of the fathers and residential addresses of the candidates is completely invasive, and would be a roving and fishing enquiry. The said information which is sought is clearly protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act which provides that any such information shall not be provided which constitutes personal information and is invasive of the privacy of individuals. xxx                   xxx                   xxx
15. For the act of the Petitioner having concealed the material facts including that his daughter had applied for appointment to the post of Multi-Tasking Staff, the petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the “High Court of Delhi (Middle Income Group) legal Aid Society”. … …”

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 12.01.2021 - Har Kishan Vs. President Secretariat through its Secretary & Anr. (1,018.1 KiB, 1,482 hits)

Electronic Voting Machine
Electronic voting machine is not information

  Delhi High Court judgment dated 17.12.2019 - Election Commission of India Vs. Central Information Commission and Anr. (364.3 KiB, 1,916 hits)

Larger Public Interest
— Delhi HC Judgment dated 31.08.2020 – Dr. R.S. Gupta Vs. Govt. of NCTD & Ors. – Delhi High Court: “The disclosure of this information ex-facie has no relationship to any public activity or public interest and pertinently, the appellant is not able to explain or show any nexus between the personal information sought and the public interest involved, for seeking its disclosure. Thus, in our view, in absence of even a remote connection with any larger public interest, disclosure of information would be exempted as the same would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. Petitioner has thus failed to establish that the information sought for is for any public interest, much less ‘larger public interest’. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal.”

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 31.08.2020 - Dr. R.S. Gupta Vs. Govt. of NCTD & Ors. (151.7 KiB, 1,038 hits)

2. SERVICE MATTERS

Adultery * Compulsory Retirement * Delay in conducting departmental inquiry * Departmental Proceeding under the Payment of Gratuity Act * Habitual Indebtedness * Pension * Reservation * Sexual Harassment * Suspension * Voluntary Retirement

Adultery
Rajasthan High Court held that the State Government shall not initiate departmental proceedings on the basis of a complaint of any person against a Government servant alleging therein of the said Government servant having extra-marital relationship with another man or woman whether married or unmarried.

  Rajasthan HC Judgement dated 07.03.2019 - Mahesh Chand Sharma s/o Shri Girraj Prasad Sharma vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. (248.8 KiB, 846 hits)

Compulsory Retirement — “… the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment and carries no stigma. The rule of compulsory retirement has been held to hold the balance between the rights of the individual government servant and the interest of the public administration.”  

  Bombay High Court Judgement dated 07.05.2014 - Mahesh Prabhakar Kamat Vs. Kamba Transport Corporation Ltd., Goa, & Others (149.6 KiB, 3,847 hits)

 Delay in conducting departmental inquiry 

— Unexplained Delay Of 13 Years In Initiating Inquiry Vitiated The Disciplinary Proceedings

Delhi High Court: “In considering, whether, delay was vitiated the disciplinary proceedings, the Court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay was occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path, he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules but then delay defeat the justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations. It is further observed in the aforesaid judgment that if the delay is too long and remains unexplained, the court may interfere and quash the charges. However, how delay is too long would depend upon the facts of each and every case and if such delay has prejudiced or is likely to prejudice, the delinquent in defending the inquiry ought to be interdicted.”

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 13.08.2019 - D.P. Sharma M/s BSES Rajdhani Power Limited & Anr. (754.0 KiB, 670 hits)

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 02.07.2012 - Union of India & Anr. Vs. B.A. Dhayalan (304.0 KiB, 4,838 hits)

Gratuity
— An employee is an employee, casual, ad-hoc or part time, under the Payment of Gratuity Act: Delhi HC
Delhi HC: “The definition of employee in the Act, 1972 also does not speak of any specific categories of the employees for its applicability, be it, regular, ad-hoc, part time, casual etc. etc. As for the payment of gratuity under the subject Act, to assess the quantum thereof, it provides for the definition of wages in sub-Section (s) of Section 2. … … :
The combined reading of sub-Section (e) and sub-Section (s) of Section 2 of the Act, 1972 leaves no doubt that the gratuity is payable to the employees defined under the subject Act and is to be assessed on the basis of the wages / emoluments, within the ceiling limit as provided there-under.” –

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 17.11.2019 - National Bal Bhawan Vs. Vandana, Roopa Sharma and Ors. (309.1 KiB, 500 hits)

— Departmental Proceeding under the Payment of Gratuity Act
Departmental proceedings under the Payment of Gratuity Act can be initiated against an employee even after his retirement: Delhi High Court

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 30.07.2019 - J.P. Mahajan Vs. Governing Body, Kirori Mal College & Anr. (583.4 KiB, 3,810 hits)

— The employee having been allowed to superannuate in normal course, it was not permissible to withhold his gratuity under the PG Act: Delhi High Court. 

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 04.10.2018 - Vijay Krishan Vs. The State Trading Corporation & Ors. (450.2 KiB, 164 hits)

  ECHS Circular dated 26.09.2018 - ELIGIBILITY OF PERMANTLY DISABLED UNMARRIED SON OF A ECHS BENEFICIARY TO AVAIL ECHS FACILITY (734.0 KiB, 994 hits)

Habitual Indebtedness 

  Delhi High Court Judgment dated 21.12.2012 - G.C. Verma Vs. UOI and Ors. (47.7 KiB, 876 hits)

 Pension  

  Delhi High Court Judgment dated 26.03.2015 - N. Bhardwaja Vs. Union of India & Ors. (221.8 KiB, 3,772 hits)

 Reservation 

— PWDs 

  Bombay HC judgement dated 04.12.2013 - National Confederation for Development of Disabled & Anr. (132.5 KiB, 9,435 hits)

  Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgement dated 15.07.2011 - Lachhmi Narain Gupta & others Vs. Jarnail Singh and others (176.8 KiB, 830 hits)

— Reservation in Promotion

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 23.08.2017 - All India Equality Forum & Others Vs. Union of India through its Secretary and Others (593.4 KiB, 1,944 hits)

Sexual Harassment 

Bombay High Court: Guidelines to Protect Identities of Parties Involved

  Bombay HC Judgement dated 24.09.2021 - P Vs. A & Ors. (160.6 KiB, 311 hits)

— Delhi HC: “Consent, given under coercion, or without volition, is no consent at all.”

  Delhi High Court Judgment dated 25.11.2019 - Ajay Tiwari Vs. University of Delhi and Ors. (1.5 MiB, 881 hits)

— Delhi High Court:15. Undoubtedly, physical contact or advances would constitute sexual harassment provided such physical contact is a part of the sexually determined behaviour. Such physical contact must be in the context of a behaviour which is sexually oriented. Plainly, a mere accidental physical contact, even though unwelcome, would not amount to sexual harassment. Similarly, a physical contact which has no undertone of a sexual nature and is not occasioned by the gender of the complainant may not necessarily amount to sexual harassment.
16. … … Plainly, all physical contact cannot be termed as sexual harassment and only a physical contact or advances which are in the nature of an “unwelcome sexually determined behaviour” would amount to sexual harassment.” – Delhi HC Judgement dated 31.10.2017 – Shanta Kumar Vs. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) & Ors. 

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 31.10.2017 - Shanta Kumar Vs. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) & Ors. (336.3 KiB, 2,768 hits)

Suspension
Non-Filing Of Chargesheet Within 3 Months Cannot Be A Ground For Revoking Suspension Order

Delhi High Court: “11. We may observe that there can be no hard and fast rule that in all cases where charge sheet is not filed within three months, of suspension, the same would mandatorily be revoked. The need for continuation of the same would have to be assessed on the facts of each case. Most relevant would be the nature and substance of allegations; the materials on which the same is founded; the position held by the concerned government officer i.e. whether he is holding a portion of authority and influence, or he is a lower ranked employee with little or no power to influence others concerned with the matter.
            xxx                               xxx
14. The petitioner is a senior, highly ranked government officer and was occupying a high position at the time of his suspension. He was in a position to influence witnesses and tamper with the evidence. He has been released on bail. Pertinently, the petitioner has also not placed before us the order passed by the Court granting him bail which may have, if produced, thrown light on the allegations against the petitioner. Considering all these aspects as well, we are not satisfied that the suspension of the petitioner should not have been continued in the present case.”

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 05.07.2019 - Rakesh Kumar Garg V. Union of India & Ors. (297.5 KiB, 551 hits)

Voluntary Retirement
Employee can withdraw request for voluntary retirement any time before its acceptance.
Delhi HC: “… … the impugned order dated 04.07.2019 rejecting the petitioner‟s request for withdrawal of her application for voluntary retirement is quashed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner to have validly withdrawn her request for voluntarily retirement.”

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 27.09.2019 - Poonam Garg Vs. IFCI Venture Capital Funds Ltd. through its MD & Ors. (648.8 KiB, 6,003 hits)

3. GENERAL

Prevention of Atrocities Act
Delhi High Court: “… … it would make no difference whether the privacy settings are set by the author of the offending post to “private” or “public”. Pertinently, Section 3(1)(x) of the Act does not require that the intentional insult or intimidation with intention to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe should take place in the presence of the said member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Even if the victim is not present, and behind his/her back the offending insult or intimidation with intention to humiliate him/ her – who is a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe takes place, the same would be culpable if it takes place within public view.” – Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 03.07.2017 - Ms Gayatri @ Apurna Singh Vs. State & Anr. (434.8 KiB, 598 hits)

Zero FIR

  Delhi High Court Judgment dated 29.11.2019 - Sudesh Yadav & Anr. Vs. The State (Zero FIR) (190.0 KiB, 279 hits)

 Note:- It may be noted that the information in this website is subject to the Disclaimer of Dtf.in. If you have a complaint with respect to any content published in this website, it may kindly be brought to our notice for appropriate action to remove such content as early as possible or publish the latest/updated content/event, if any, at info[at]dtf.in.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 3.0/5 (2 votes cast)
High Court Judgements On Service Matters & Other Subjects, 3.0 out of 5 based on 2 ratings

Check Also

Law News

LAW: ‘An an ounce of personal love is worth more than tons of professional services at public institution’: Delhi Court; ‘SC-ST Act case can be quashed in case of fair compromise’ …

‘An an ounce of personal love is worth more than tons of professional services rendered …

Sign in to browse DTF.in for FREE!

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 3.0/5 (2 votes cast)
High Court Judgements On Service Matters & Other Subjects, 3.0 out of 5 based on 2 ratings