S.B. Sinha, J. - (1.) All these appeals involving common question of law and facts are taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) The writ petitioners appellants had appeared before a selection test for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector. The entire process of selection and/or the test was cancelled for alleged irregularities committed in relation thereto. In a writ application a confidential letter dated 16th September, 1994 had been annexed by the appellants. The said writ application was however, dismissed. Only because the petitioners had annexed a confidential document along with the writ application, a charge-sheet was issued stating : "Serious misconduct in that Shri Rajeshwar Singh C/8352 of Resv-1/LLH Post obtained unauthorisedly and voluntarily the possession of the copy of the confidential D.O. letter No. SC.30/19/31-E dated 16-9-94 from CSC/RPF/ E.Rly. addressed to Shri Lalit Kumar, Sr. Security Commissioner R.P.F.E. Railway, Howrah (I) along with its confidential enclosures and used it as Annexure 'D' in his writ petition to Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta, over which C.O. No, 1209(W) of 1995 arose. For such possession and use of a confidential documents of the office Shri Rajeshwar Singh C/8352 Resv-1/LLH Post did not obtain any permission of the competent authority, thereby violated the provisions of S. 11 of the Railway Service Conduct Rules, 1966". Rule 11 of the Railway Service Conduct Rules, 1966 on the basis whereof such charges have been framed reads thus : "11. Unauthorised communication of information regarding Railway Servant, shall except in accordance with any general or special order of the Government or in the performance in good faith of the duties assigned to him communicate directly or indirectly, any official document or any part thereof or information to any Government, or railway servant or any other person to whom he is not authorised to communicate such documents or information. Explanation : Question by a railway servant in his representations to official superior authorities or from any letter, circular of office memorandum, or from the notes on any file to which he is not authorised to have access or which he is not authorised to keep in his personal custody or for personal purposes shall amount to unauthorised communication of information within the meaning of this rule".
(3.) Interpretation of Rule 11 of the Railway Service Conduct Rules, 1966 was the subject matter of consideration before one of us in C.O. 17281(W) of 1995 and C.O. 17485(W) of 1995 and C.O. 18043(W) of 1995, wherein it has been held that unauthorised communication of information would be a misconduct. Interpreting the said rule, this Court found that annexing a copy of the confidential document in writ application by itself cannot be a misconduct because that would not amount to unauthorised information as writ Court is entitled to have before it all the relevant documents unless a privilege is claimed in relation thereto. It is not the case of the respondents that by reason of such annexation of confidential document in writ application any prejudice has been caused to anybody. Ex facie, the charge-sheets have been issued mala fide particularly in view of the fact that it was also not stated in the said writ proceeding by the respondents herein that the document was so confidential in nature that a privilege could be claimed thereupon. It was observed, "If filing of document is necessary a writ Court shall encourage the revelation of truth by allowing the parties to file the document which is in their power and possession unless as stated hereinbefore privilege is claimed by any of the parties irrespective of the source.";