G.S.SANDHAWALIA,J. - (1.) The petitioner challenges order dated 2.4.2014 (Annexure P/6) whereby the respondent -Commission has upheld order dated 20.11.2013 (Annexure P/2) passed by respondent no.2 -State Public Information Officer -cum -Deputy Secretary to Government, Haryana, Personnel Department and the order dated 16.12.2013 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Secretary to Government, Haryana Personnel Department -cum -First Appellate Authority. The respondent -Commission came to the conclusion that the information had been rightly denied to the petitioner while placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commissioner and others 2012(8) SCR 1097 and a finding was recorded that the information which was sought was primarily between the employee and the employer and therefore disclosure of which had no relationship to any public authority or public interest. The petitioner's argument that citizen has a right to know the action taken against public servants involved in corruption charges was accordingly not taken into consideration while upholding the orders passed by the authorities below. Resultantly, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner at the very out set submits that out of the information which is sought vide application dated 24.10.2013 (Annexure P/1), he restricts his claim only to the issue of corruption against the officers and does not press for the information regarding other complaints and disciplinary action taken against the said officers. The information which was sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") reads as under: - "Subject: Application under the RTI Act. Subject matter of information : Information about the complaints and corruption cases against the serving and retired IAS, IPS, IRS, HCS, HPS officers. Sir, Please furnished below mentioned information under the RTI Act. 1. Against how many officers of the aforesaid cadre the cases (of all types) were registered, during the aforesaid period? 2. Please inform about the action taken by the State Government against such officers. 3. In how many cases the actions/proceedings are still pending? As per record, please inform the reasons for pendency. 4. As per the State Government Rules, what benefits of such officers can be withheld? 5) Please inform, benefits of how many officers were withheld? Please provide the name and designation of such officers. 6) Please provide the names and designations of such officers, who were granted all benefits like increments, promotion, extension of service, reinstatement etc. despite registration of cases against them. 7) Please provide the copy of orders vide which the service benefits were given to such officers against whom cases had been registered. Also provide the names and designations of such officers who granted service benefits to the officers against whom cases had been registered."
(3.) It is not disputed that regarding Clause 4, necessary relief has already been granted by the respondent -Commission and the petitioner is also not aggrieved against the same as the matter has been transferred to appropriate authority under Section 6(3) of the Act for furnishing information. However, a perusal of the above information sought would go on to show that the petitioner seeks information as to the cases of all types which were registered against the said officers.;