Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH
Prafulla S.Khubalkar
Education Officer (Primary) – Appellant
Versus
State Information Commissioner, State Information Commission – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge against disciplinary inquiry under rti act. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. section 20 of rti act restricts disciplinary action to cpio. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. natural justice principles apply before disciplinary recommendations. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 4. disciplinary recommendations against the appellate authority are not permissible. (Para 16) |
| 5. writ petition allowed; impugned order quashed. (Para 17 , 18) |
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 pr
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 prin....
The imposition of penalty by the State Information Commissioner was held invalid due to lack of statutory authority and necessary procedural safeguards under the Right to Information Act.
Adherence to the principles of natural justice and compliance with the Right to Information Act, 2005, including the imposition of penalties and compensation, must be in accordance with the statutory....
The court established that the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, 2005 should be strictly construed, and the Commissioner must ensure that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide b....
(1) There is clear distinction in between “Public Authority” within meaning of Section 2(h) and “Public Information Officer” within meaning of Section 2(m) of Right to Information Act, 2005.(2) Award....
Penalty and disciplinary recommendation under RTI Act Section 20 require persistent default without reasonable cause; institutional delays from workload and staff shortage not personal fault; biased,....
The Right to Information Act permits the imposition of penalties solely on designated Public Information Officers, not on appellate authorities.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
