CWP No. 25698 of 2017 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (203) CWP No. 25698 of 2017 Date of Decision: 15.07.2026 Dr. Akhilesh Grover ......Petitioner Versus Punjab State Information Commission and Others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Harish Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner (through V.C.) Mr. Luvinder Sofat, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Ms. Madhu Bala, Advocate for Mr. J.S. Moudgil, Advocate for respondents No.5 & 6. **** KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL) 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned orders dated 23.10.2017 (Annexures P-1 & P-2) passed by respondent No.1. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, a Medical Officer in the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, was posted as In-charge, Mini PHC Saron. Respondent No.6, a Multipurpose Health Supervisor, was earlier posted at the same centre and was subordinate to the petitioner. It is submitted that due to the repeated misconduct of respondent No.6, he was transferred to Sub-Divisional Hospital, Talwandi Sabo. Infact, disciplinary action was also recommended against respondent No.6 and a charge-sheet under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970 was issued by the Director, Health and RITIKA 2026.07.21 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 25698 of 2017 -2- Family Welfare, Punjab vide order dated 26.04.2018. Thereafter, respondent No.5, daughter of respondent No.6, sought personal records of the petitioner, including attendance and OPD registers, under the Right to Information Act. The information was initially denied as third-party information; however, the State Information Commission, vide order dated 23.10.2017, directed its disclosure. The petitioner has challenged the said order on the ground that the information sought relates to his personal records and could not have been disclosed under the Right to Information Act. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in LPA-145-2020 titled as “Dr. Jagrati Sharma Versus State Information Commissioner, Haryana and Others” 3. Learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the official respondents does not controvert the factual submissions made. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.5 and 6 submits that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner by providing the information sought under the RTI Act. It is submitted that the order dated 23.10.2017 passed by respondent No.1 is valid, as the attendance register and monthly attendance reports are official records and do not amount to third-party information. It is further submitted that the allegations against respondent No.6 are unrelated to the right of respondent No.5 to seek information. Any misconduct by respondent No.6 is a matter between him and the department and cannot restrict the right to information. Since the petitioner is a public servant, disclosure of official attendance records does not cause any prejudice to him. 5. Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the judicial record with their able assistance. 6. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment RITIKA 2026.07.21 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 25698 of 2017 -3- of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commissioner and others”, 2012 (8) SCR 1097, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that personal information relating to an employee’s service record, including disciplinary proceedings and other personal details, is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads thus:- "12. The petitioner herein sought for copies of all memos, show cause notices and censure/punishment awarded to the third respondent from his employer and also details viz. movable and immovable properties and also the details of his investments, lending and borrowing from Banks and other financial institutions. Further, he has also sought for the details of gifts stated to have accepted by the third respondent, his family members and friends and relatives at the marriage of his son. The information mostly sought for finds a place in the income tax returns of the third respondent. The question that has come up for consideration is whether the above-mentioned information sought for qualifies to be "personal information" as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. 13. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right." 7. As noticed above, in the present case also, the information sought by respondent No.5 relates to the personal service record of the petitioner, including his attendance and OPD details. Such information is RITIKA 2026.07.21 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 25698 of 2017 -4- personal in nature and has no connection with any larger public interest. Therefore, the same cannot be disclosed merely on the basis of an application filed under the Right to Information Act. 8. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commissioner and others (supra) are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The service details and performance records of an employee are covered under “personal information” as per Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Such information cannot be disclosed as it may cause an unnecessary invasion of the employee’s privacy, unless disclosure is required in the larger public interest. 9. In the present case, no larger public interest has been shown for disclosing the attendance records of the petitioner records and other service- related information. The State Information Commission failed to consider the exemption provided under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act and directed disclosure of personal information of the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 23.10.2017 (Annexures P-1 and P-2) passed by respondent No.1 are set aside. 11. Civil pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE July 15, 2026 Ritika Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RITIKA 2026.07.21 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh