The State Information Commission lacks jurisdiction to recommend disciplinary action against the First Appellate Authority under Section 20(2) of the Right to Information Act, and must adhere to principles of natural justice.

Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J.

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of both parties.

2. Heard Mrs. B.P. Maldhure, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A.V. Palshikar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Mr. V.V. Raut, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

3. The petitioner takes exception to the order dated 10.01.2020 passed by the State Information Commission recommending disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner who was holding the post of Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad Nagpur, for alleged violation of Section 19 (6) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

4. The petitioner’s challenge is based on two primary submissions, one being violation of principles of natural justice and second on account of misreading and misinterpretation of provisions of Section 2 0(2) of the Right to Information Act.

5. The factual set up leading to the filing of the instant petition is succinctly put as under :

The respondent No.2, claiming himself to be a social worker had filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 14.11.2018, seeking information about the action taken against the Principal and Teachers of Arvind Indo Public School, Parsioni. In response to the application submitted by respondent No.2, the Public Information Officer communicated to him that the inquiry was pending. Treating this reply as non-supply of information pursuant to his application, the respondent No.2 filed First Appeal on 11.01.2019 before the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur and demanded information within 48 hours. The First Appellate Authority i.e. Incharge Deputy Education Officer (Primary) issued notice of hearing informing respondent No.2 the date of hearing as 04.02.2019. At this juncture, before the First Appeal could be decided, the respondent No.2 filed Second Appeal on 03.04.2019 before the State Information Commission- respondent No.1 alleging that the information was not provided to him within the prescribed time. Accordingly, the proceedings started before the Second Appellate authority and during the pendency of the Second Appeal, the First Appellate Authority communicated to the respondent No.2 that the information was available and could be supplied to the petitioner. The hearing was conducted in the second appeal on 09.01.2020 and the final order was passed on 10.01.2020, thereby categorically observing that the information is being supplied by the First Appellate Authority to the respondent No.2. The information was supplied to the respondent no.2 by communication dated 15-01- 2020 which was accompanied with 11 pages. Pertinently, by the Final order passed by the Commission, specific directions were issued to recommend disciplinary inquiry against the First Appellate Authority i.e. the Education Officer (Primary) naming the petitioner for delay in deciding the First Appeal. Being aggrieved by this order recommending disciplinary inquiry against him the Education Officer Shri Chitaman Wanjari has filed the instant Writ Petition, who at the relevant time, was holding the said post and against whom the enquiry is ordered to be initiated.

6. Mrs. B.P. Maldhure, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently submitted that the impugned order is absolutely unsustainable in law being passed without considering purport of the provisions of the Right to Information Act particularly, Section 2 0(2) of the Act. She submitted that the impugned order has adverse civil consequence against the