SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.

1. Short question involved in this writ petition is whether the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission is justified in recommending the disciplinary action against the petitioner under Section 20(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (henceforth "Act, 2005").

2. Aforesaid question arises in following factual backdrop:-

(2.1) The petitioner has joined the post of Tahsildar, Tamnar, District Raigarh with effect from 26.9.2013. According to him, he supplied the requisite information to the respondent No. 4 on 03.06.2015.

(2.2) The respondent No. 2- State Information Commission, by its impugned order dated 30.05.2015, has directed disciplinary action against the petitioner under Section 20(2) of the Act, 2005 for non furnishing such information as applied by respondent No.4, against which instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner herein on the ground that none of the ingredients as required under Section 20(2) of the Act, 2005 is made out to pass order of recommending disciplinary action by State Information Commission against him.

3. Shri Ashish Surana, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that order passed by the State Information Commissioner is contrary to the provisions contained in Section 20(2) of the Act, 2005 as there is no denial of information by the petitioner. He submits that petitioner did not receive any notice or order from the Commission to supply information but as soon as he came to know about passing of the impugned order dated 30.05.2015, he immediately supplied information to respondent No. 4 on 3.6.2015 and, therefore, order passed by the State Information Commission recommending disciplinary action against the petitioner is liable to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent No. 1 while supporting the impugned order would submit that petitioner or his representative deliberately did not appear before the State Information Commission on 07.03.2014, 22.08.2004 and 20.02.2015 despite the fact that first appellate authority has already directed for furnishing of the information to the petitioner.

5. I have, heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove with utmost circumspection.

6. The State Information Commission has exercised its power under Section 20(2) of the Act, 2005 by recommending disciplinary action against the petitioner.

7. Section 20(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 states as under:-

"20. Penalties.-(1) xxx xxx xxx

(2) Where the Central Information Officer or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him."

8. A bare perusal of the provisions contained in Section 20(2) of the Act, 2005 would show that the order of penalty for failure is akin to action under criminal law and, therefore, it is necessary to ensure that the failure to supply the information is either intentional or deliberate. Thus, the State Information Commission while recommending disciplinary action against the petitioner has given a specific finding that there is denial of information without reasonable cause and action is tainted with mala fides.

9. In the matter of Manohar Manikrao Anchule v. State of Maharashtra & a