Information obtained under the RTI Act and displayed on the Notice Board of the employer company - No misconduct
Madras High Court Upholds Transparency: RTI Information Displayed on Notice Board Not Misconduct. Court dismisses Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited's appeal against employee for sharing RTI-obtained information publicly
In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court's Madurai Bench has dismissed an appeal by Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL), upholding the decision that displaying information obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act on a company notice board does not constitute misconduct. The judgment, delivered by Justices C.V. Karthikeyan and R. Vijayakumar, reinforced the principles of transparency and accountability that underpin the RTI Act.
The case arose when Aron K. Thiraviaraj, a Crane Operator at BHEL, faced disciplinary action for allegedly pasting official details obtained through the RTI Act on the company's notice board. The company argued that this act constituted unauthorized communication of official documents under its Standing Orders. However, the High Court observed that the information was already in the public domain and not exempt from disclosure, thereby not qualifying as misconduct.
The controversy began when Thiraviaraj's wife applied for information regarding the selection process of the 9th Artisan Examinations. The details, including statistics about applicants and selected candidates, were provided by BHEL in compliance with the RTI Act. These details were later found displayed in the company canteen, leading to a charge memo and departmental proceedings against Thiraviaraj.
In its judgment, the court highlighted that the RTI Act is designed to promote transparency and accountability, and the dissemination of such information, when lawfully disclosed, cannot be deemed unauthorized communication. The judges noted that the displayed information did not disrupt the workplace nor was it treated as confidential by BHEL. The court emphasized that the mere display of public information does not harm the company's operations and may, in fact, enhance its reputation by demonstrating adherence to transparency norms.
The ruling affirmed the learned Single Judge's decision, which had earlier quashed the penalty advice against Thiraviaraj, citing the baseless nature of the charges. The court reiterated that the RTI Act's purpose is to facilitate public access to information, and penalizing employees for sharing such information contravenes this objective.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the RTI Act's principles, ensuring that employees are not wrongfully penalized for promoting transparency. It serves as a reminder to organizations to respect the public nature of RTI-obtained information and to align their internal policies with the Act's objectives.
Bottom Line:
Information obtained under the RTI Act and displayed on the Notice Board of the employer company cannot constitute misconduct under Standing Orders when the information is already in the public domain and not exempt from disclosure.
Statutory provision(s): Right to Information Act, 2005, Rule 60(16) and Rule 51 of Standing Orders of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited
