Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/476/2023

LEELA RAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

DISTRICT COLLECTOR/Deputy Commissioner, - Opp.Party(s)

NARESH CHANDER

01 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/476/2023
Date of Institution	:	3/10/2023
Date of Decision	:	1/10/2024

 

Leela Ram son of Sh. Bhore Lal, aged 78 years R/o H.No.16-D, Sector-30, Chandigarh.

.Complainant

 

Versus

 

District Collector/Deputy Commissioner, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

 

.... Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for complainant alongwith complainant in person.
	:	OP exparte.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OP). The brief facts of the case are as under :-
   1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that   complainant applied for documents U/s 76  of the Indian  Evidence Act 1872 from the Opposite party and paid Rs.50/- vide IPO dated 15.5.2023, which was duly received and acknowledged by the Opposite party and the copy of application, postal receipt and acknowledgement are annexed as Annexure C-1 to C-3.  Under the provisions of Indian  Evidence Act the Opposite party was bound to supply the documents within one month  but till date  the same has not been supplied/provided to the complainant despite reminder copy of the same is annexed as Annexure C-4. The  aforesaid documents are required urgently to the complainant for his personal  matter and due to the non-supply of the aforesaid documents the complainant has suffered with mental  tension and harassment. In this manner, the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. OP was requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
   2. OP  was properly served and communication dated 17.11.2023 was received from the office of Opposite party but none turned up before this Commission on its behalf, hence, Opposite party was proceeded against ex-parte on 5.12.2023.
2. In order to prove his claims the complainant has tendered/proved his evidence by way of affidavit and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the complainant that  he applied for document U/s 76 of the India Evidence Act  from the Opposite party, which was not supplied by the Opposite party,  the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the aforesaid act of the Opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for, as is the case of the complainant or if the complainant being not maintainable is liable to be dismissed.
   2. As per case of the complainant he had applied for supply of certain documents with the Opposite party U/s 76 of the Indian  Evidence Act 1872 but surprisingly  the complainant has not given the details of the documents in the complaint of which he is seeking certified copies from OP. However, the complainant annexed certain documents with the present complaint which clearly indicate that the complainant had applied for certified copies of disciplinary proceedings initiated against Jagdish Bairwa and Ashok Kumar Yogi, the then Tehsildar and Patwari respectively of Halka Bansur (Rajasthan). There is specific reference made by the complainant in the application filed by him with the District Collector, Alwar Rajasthan in sub para (1) of the  application Annexure C-1 as well as in the letter Annexure C-3 issued by the Additional District Collector   exercising the power of State Public Information Officer, declining the information to the complainant under RTI  by holding that the said information is not covered under Right to Information Act and even in another application Annexure C-4 moved by the complainant under Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act indicates that the complainant had applied for the copies of disciplinary  proceedings against the then Tehsildar and Patwari, Halka Bansur.
   3. In the back drop of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, it is to be determined if the information of aforesaid disciplinary proceedings initiated against the then Tehsildar and Patwari of Halka Bansur under The Classification, Control and Appeal (CCA) Rules 1965  can be supplied to the complainant under Section 76  of the Indian Evidence Act  and also to be determined if the aforesaid documents are “Public Documents”.
   4. As per CCA Rules 1965, the framework for disciplinary action against the government officers in India  provided  and various types of proceedings can be initiated against such officer  based on the nature and severity of the misconduct and inefficiency and the following primary types of proceedings are included:-

1. Minor penalty
2. major penalty
3. proceedings of suspension
4. enquiry proceedings
5. appeal and review  
   5.  These proceedings are governed by the principle of natural justice ensuring that the government official has an opportunity to be heard and defended against the charges before any penalty is imposed.  Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act  prescribes that the certified copies of public documents  can be supplied, making further clear that U/s 76 of the Indian Evidence Act  only public documents as defined U/s 74 Indian Evidence Act  can be supplied and no private document as provided U/s 75 of the Indian Evidence Act.  The Section 74, 75 and 76 of the Evidence Act is reproduced as under:-

“74. Public documents.––The following documents are public documents:

(1) Documents forming the acts, or records of the acts-

 (i) of the sovereign authority,

(ii) of official bodies and tribunals, and (iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive,  [of any part of India or of the Commonwealth], or of a foreign country;

 (2) Public records kept [in any State] of private documents.

75. Private documents.––All other documents are private.

76. Certified copies of public documents.––Every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees there for, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal; and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies.

Explanation.––Any officer who, by the ordinary course of official duty, is authorized to deliver such copies, shall be deemed to have the custody of such documents within the meaning of this section.”

6. Thus one thing is clear that as per section 76 of the  Evidence Act  that the certified copies of public documents can only be supplied to the complainant  and the entire case of the complainant is revolving around  the fact if the disciplinary proceedings under CCA Rules are public documents.
7. The disciplinary proceedings against the government official/officer conducted under  CCA Rules are typically involved sensitive and confidential information  and such proceedings are usually classified as “privileged documents”  rather than a “public documents” because they may have been containing personal and internal information and sensitive details that are not intended for public dissemination. Confidentiality of disciplinary proceedings are maintained to protect the privacy of the individual involved and to ensure that internal process are   not unduly influenced by public and media scrutiny as a result of which these documents  typically are not accessible under Section 74  of the Indian Evidence Act especially when the right to obtain certified copy under section 76  is only restricted to “Public Documents”  whereas the  disciplinary proceedings conducted  under CCA Rules 1965  are typically internal administrative matters and are often considered “private documents”  or “privileged documents”.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is safe to hold that the documents certified copies whereof  have been sought by the complainant from the Opposite party being not a “public documents” rather a “privileged documents”  cannot be supplied to the complainant, which was rightly denied by the office of District Collector, Alwar Rajasthan.

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
6. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 1/10/2024			[Pawanjit Singh] President
mp
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member