Once RTI Information Is Lawfully Disclosed, Its Sharing by an Employee Is Not “Unauthorised Communication” or “Official Document” Misconduct

Case: The Manager (TP-BPN), Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Trichy v. Aron K. Thiraviaraj

Citation: 2025 MHC 2252

Court: Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), Division Bench

Bench: C.V. Karthikeyan, J. and R. Vijayakumar, J.

Date of Decision: 22 September 2025

Procedural Posture: Writ Appeal (Clause 15 Letters Patent) against order dated 26.02.2020 in W.P.(MD) No. 1200 of 2013

Introduction

This writ appeal concerns the intersection between the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) and employer disciplinary control under certified Standing Orders. The appellant, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL), penalized a crane operator (the respondent-writ petitioner) by reducing his pay by two stages with cumulative effect for one year, alleging “unauthorised communication of official documents/information.” The alleged misconduct arose from the display, on a canteen notice board, of recruitment-related statistical information that had been lawfully furnished by BHEL itself to the employee’s spouse under the RTI Act.

The Single Judge had quashed the penalty, holding that disclosure of information obtained under the RTI Act could not be termed unauthorised communication under the Standing Orders, particularly in the absence of evidence connecting the employee to the act of pasting and given the non-confidential character of the information. In appeal, the Division Bench affirms, crystallizing an important principle: information that a public authority has voluntarily disclosed under the RTI Act cannot be recharacterized as “official” or “confidential” for the purposes of disciplinary action on grounds of unauthorised communication.

Summary of the Judgment

The Division Bench dismissed BHEL’s writ appeal and upheld the Single Judge’s order quashing the penalty advice dated 17.12.2012.
The Court held that the recruitment data furnished under the RTI Act did not constitute an “official document” or “information relating to operations and business” for purposes of Rule 60(16) of the Standing Orders, because it had already been lawfully disclosed by the public authority to promote transparency.
Once information is furnished under the RTI Act, the employer has implicitly acknowledged that it is not exempt from disclosure; consequently, its sharing cannot be treated as unauthorised communication under Rule 51 or Rule 60(16) of the Standing Orders.
The Court noted the innocuous, statistical nature of the data (e.g., number of applicants/selected, category-wise distribution) and the absence of any evidence of disruption or harm caused by its display.
Even apart from factual doubts about who pasted the information, the Court held that pasting RTI-disclosed information on an internal notice board did not amount to misconduct under the Standing Orders.

Factual Background and Issues

Key facts

The respondent-writ petitioner was a Crane Operator, Grade II, at BHEL, Trichy.
His spouse sought and received recruitment details of the 9th Artisan Examinations under the RTI Act from BHEL’s Corporate Office (communication dated 29.09.2011).
The received information was later found pasted on the 58 Canteen notice board within BHEL premises.
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Standing Orders Rule 60(16) and 60(27) read with Rule 51, culminating in a penalty of pay reduction by two stages for one year with cumulative effect.

Issues framed by the controversy

Whether the display of information lawfully obtained under the RTI Act can constitute “unauthorised communication of official documents or information” under Rule 60(16) read with Rule 51 of BHEL’s Standing Orders.
Whether, on the facts, there was acceptable evidence linking the employee to the act of pasting the information.
Whether the writ court could interfere despite availability of alternate remedies under industrial/labour fora.

Legal Framework Applied

RTI Act, 2005:
- Section 2(f): Defines “information.”
- Section 2(j): Defines the “right to information.”
- Section 3: Confers the right to information on all citizens.
- Section 8: Enumerates exemptions from disclosure.
BHEL Standing Orders:
- Rule 51: Unauthorised communication of information (prohibits employees from communicating official documents/information to unauthorised persons except as permitted).
- Rule 60(16): Treats as misconduct the unauthorised communication of official documents or information and disclosure to unauthorised persons of information relating to the company’s operations and business.
- Rule 60(27): “Any breach of these Standing Orders” is misconduct.

Detailed Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

The Division Bench’s judgment is primarily grounded in the statutory text of the RTI Act and the employer’s Standing Orders; it does not expressly rely on external case law. The Court’s approach—giving primacy to the lawful status of information disclosed under the RTI Act and the transparency objectives underpinning that statute—aligns with the broader pro-disclosure jurisprudence developed by courts, even though such authorities are not expressly cited in this decision.

Contextually (not as citations relied upon in this judgment), the reasoning resonates with:

Supreme Court’s pro-disclosure orientation under the RTI Act, while recognising statutory exemptions (e.g., decisions like CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya), and
The general doctrine that writ courts may intervene despite alternate remedies in cases of patent illegality or when the very foundation of the action is untenable in law (as recognised in settled jurisprudence).

The present judgment, however, establishes its ratio independently by interpreting the employer’s Standing Orders in harmony with the RTI Act’s disclosure regime, without resting on specific judicial precedents.

B. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

RTI disclosure places information in the public domain
The Bench emphasises that the recruitment data had been furnished by BHEL itself under the RTI Act to promote transparency. Having been lawfully disclosed by a “public authority” within the meaning of the Act, the information could not be reclassified as an “official document” or confidential material within Rule 60(16). The employer’s act of disclosure is an implicit acknowledgement that the information is not exempt under Section 8.

The Court observes that the information “was not an official communication in the traditional sense, but rather public information shared with an applicant... pursuant to the provisions of the RTI Act... Such information cannot be classified as an ‘official document’ or as relating to the internal operations or business of the company within the meaning of Sub-clause (16) of Rule 60...” (para 38)
No “unauthorised communication” where information is non-confidential and lawfully released
Rule 51 prohibits unauthorised communication of official documents/information. The Court reasons that the subject matter—statistics of recruitment—was neither confidential nor sensitive, and was explicitly disclosed by BHEL under the RTI Act. Consequently, sharing it cannot, in principle, be “unauthorised.” The Rule is aimed at preventing leaks of confidential or restricted information, not the dissemination of lawfully disclosed public information.

“[I]t cannot be reasonably contended that the writ petitioner committed misconduct by displaying information that the respondent themselves had deemed suitable for public access.” (para 43)
Character and consequences of the information matter
The Court notes the innocuous, aggregated character of the data (number of candidates, categories, state-wise distribution), and that no disruption or harm was caused by the display. In fact, such disclosure could enhance the employer’s reputation for fairness in recruitment. Although disruption is not a necessary element in every misconduct, the absence of any adverse impact supports the conclusion that the conduct was not appropriately characterised as misconduct.
Factual link to the act of pasting was weak—and legally unnecessary to decide
The Single Judge had found no evidence that the employee pasted the information. The Division Bench endorses the quashment even assuming arguendo that he did paste it, because, in law, disseminating RTI-furnished information in this manner does not fall within the “unauthorised communication” prohibition.
Alternate remedy does not bar writ relief on foundational illegality
While BHEL urged relegation to alternate remedies (Labour/Industrial fora), the Division Bench proceeded to adjudicate and uphold the Single Judge’s interference. The implicit principle is that when the departmental action is predicated on a legally unsustainable charge—i.e., when the act alleged cannot, in law, constitute misconduct under the applicable Standing Orders—writ intervention is warranted despite alternate remedies.

C. The Ratio Decidendi (Controlling Principle)

Where a public authority has furnished information under the RTI Act, thereby acknowledging its non-exempt and public character, an employee’s display or sharing of that information—without more—does not constitute “unauthorised communication of official documents or information” or “information relating to the company’s operations and business” within the meaning of Rule 60(16) read with Rule 51 of the employer’s Standing Orders. Consequently, disciplinary action premised solely on such sharing cannot be sustained.

D. The Holding’s Boundaries and Implicit Caveats

The decision concerns information already disclosed under the RTI Act by the employer itself. It does not authorise employees to disclose information that is exempt under Section 8, confidential, or not lawfully in the public domain.
The Court’s reasoning turns significantly on the nature of the information (aggregated, statistical, non-personal, non-sensitive) and the employer’s act of disclosure. Different considerations could apply to personal data, trade secrets, or information held in fiduciary confidence, or where disclosure risks demonstrable harm.
Organisational rules about the manner of using notice boards may still be enforceable, provided they are applied lawfully and not to penalise the sharing of public-domain information.

Impact and Implications

For Public Authorities and PSUs

Alignment with transparency: The judgment reinforces that once information is lawfully disclosed under RTI, employers cannot retroactively cloak it with confidentiality to discipline employees for its further sharing.
Policy recalibration: Employers should review Standing Orders, circulars, and disciplinary matrices to ensure they do not penalise dissemination of RTI-furnished, non-exempt information.
Proactive classification and redaction: Sensitive or exempt information should be identified and withheld per Section 8 at the point of RTI processing. If disclosed, it will be harder to argue that subsequent sharing is “unauthorised.”
Notice board governance: If internal controls on postings are desired, they should be content-neutral (e.g., requiring prior permission for any posting) and must not target lawful, public information.

For Employees

Safe sharing of RTI information: Sharing information that has been lawfully released under RTI is generally safe from “unauthorised communication” charges under Standing Orders.
Remain cautious with sensitive content: Do not share personal, confidential, or exempt materials (e.g., personal data, medical/ACR records, trade secrets) or content marked restricted, especially if not disclosed under RTI.
Follow neutral rules: Comply with neutral protocols (e.g., permission for notice board use), even when the content is public, to avoid procedural infractions.

For RTI Practice

Public-domain effect: The judgment strengthens the “public-domain” character of information once released under RTI by the authority itself, limiting subsequent attempts to police its circulation through employment discipline.
Transparency dividend: The Court notes that transparency about recruitment can enhance institutional credibility, not diminish it.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“Unauthorised communication” (Standing Orders): This typically targets leaks of confidential or internal documents/information. It does not ordinarily extend to information that the employer has itself released lawfully to the public under RTI.
“Official document” vs. “information” under Rule 60(16): An “official document” implies an internal, authoritative, or confidential company record. By contrast, RTI-furnished information, shared to promote transparency, is treated as public information rather than an “official document” for misconduct purposes in this context.
“With cumulative effect” (in pay reduction): A penalty where the reduced pay forms the basis for future increments; the adverse impact does not automatically wash out after the penalty period.
Writ of Certiorari: A supervisory constitutional remedy used to quash orders that are illegal, lack jurisdiction, or suffer from foundational infirmities or violation of natural justice.
Clause 15 Letters Patent (Writ Appeal): An intra-court appellate mechanism enabling an appeal from a Single Judge’s order to a Division Bench within the same High Court, subject to maintainability conditions.
Alternate remedy doctrine: Although parties are often directed to statutory forums (e.g., Labour Courts), High Courts can intervene under Article 226 where the very charge is legally unsustainable—here, because the alleged “unauthorised communication” related to RTI-disclosed public information.

Key Passages from the Judgment

“Such information cannot be classified as an ‘official document’ or as relating to the internal operations or business of the company within the meaning of Sub-clause (16) of Rule 60 of the Standing Orders.” (para 38)

“The respondent, by voluntarily furnishing the said details, had implicitly acknowledged that the information was not exempt from public disclosure and therefore that it could be disseminated to the general public.” (para 43)

“In these circumstances, the act of pasting this information on the Notice Board cannot be reasonably construed as misconduct or as unauthorized communication of an official document under the applicable Standing Orders.” (para 41)

Practical Compliance Checklist

For Employers/Public Authorities

At the RTI-processing stage, apply Section 8 exemptions rigorously; redact sensitive portions before disclosure.
Maintain a register of categories of information routinely disclosable (suo motu disclosure) to avoid confusion later.
Clarify neutral notice board policies focusing on process (permission, duration, format), not content control of lawfully public information.
Avoid initiating disciplinary action premised solely on sharing of RTI-furnished, non-exempt information.

For Employees

Verify that the information was indeed disclosed under RTI by the authority.
Refrain from sharing personal/confidential details or documents not lawfully in the public domain.
Follow workplace protocols for postings; keep records (e.g., copies of RTI replies) to show lawful origin.

Conclusion

The Madras High Court’s decision firmly anchors employer disciplinary authority within the transparency commitments of the RTI Act. By holding that recruitment statistics disclosed under RTI cannot be recharacterized as “official” or “confidential” for the purposes of unauthorised communication under Standing Orders, the Court delineates a clear boundary: once a public authority lawfully releases information, further sharing of that information—without more—cannot attract disciplinary penalties as misconduct under rules aimed at preventing leaks of confidential material.

The ruling also underscores two ancillary points. First, factual inferences in disciplinary proceedings must be supported by evidence; mere conjecture is insufficient. Second, the availability of alternate remedies does not preclude writ intervention where the foundational premise of the disciplinary action is legally untenable.

In the broader legal landscape, this judgment strengthens the public-domain effect of RTI disclosures and harmonizes industrial disciplinary law with statutory transparency norms. For employers, the message is to calibrate confidentiality at the point of RTI processing and to avoid penalizing the dissemination of non-exempt information they have themselves chosen to release. For employees, the decision affirms that lawful transparency is not misconduct.