Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

24. We may take notice of a Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pritam Singh v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2004 SC 4750. The appellant Pritam Singh was working as a Head Clerk in Northern Railways. An employee sought the "absentee statement" from the appellant, which he gave. That employee used the said statement in certain legal proceedings against the railways challenging the disciplinary action taken against him. This Act on the part of the appellant was viewed as a misconduct and leakage of official information and he was charge-sheeted for the same. The appellant admitted to his having given "absentee statement".

25. On the basis of the inquiry report, the appellant was ordered to be compulsory retired. He challenged the penalty inflicted upon him before a Bench of the Tribunal at Chandigarh. The same was rejected. The High Court also rejected his writ petition. The appellant approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The punishment inflicted was challenged on merits as well as on the ground of being disproportionate. On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the appellant was merely a custodian of the document and not the approving authority to supply the same to an employee. The appellant had not complied with the procedure for supplying of documents and was guilty of unauthorisedly communicating the "absentee statement" to another employee, who was litigating against the Railways. The Hon'ble Supreme Court did not agree with the aforesaid contention of the respondent. The Supreme Court held that just because an employee is facing a litigation, he does not loose his right to get information to which he has a right so long as the same is not barred.

26. Moreover, furnishing of such information has not done or caused any damage to the office except causing an inconvenient situation to the Railways in contesting the case of an employee when the railway administration was confronted with the said "absentee statement" which prompted the Railways to initiate against the appellant.

27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the conduct of the appellant was neither a misconduct nor a serious mistake. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that the punishment of compulsory retirement in such circumstances was highly disproportionate.