ORDER :

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 22.04.2022 passed by the State Information Commission /respondent No.2 imposing penalty upon the petitioner of Rs.25,000/- under the provision of Section 20 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short “ RTI Act”).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that State Information Commissioner in the impugned order has recorded that the notice was issued to the Public Information Officer/Block Education Officer, Surajpur, Block-Surajpur on 08.06.2020, 27.03.2021, 26.08.2021 and 22.01.2022, but there was no representation on behalf of the Block Education Officer/Public Information Officer nor any reply has been submitted. He submits that notices might have been issued on the date mentioned in the order, however, before the date of issuance of notice, petitioner was behind the bar in connection with some criminal case registered against him and pursuant to registration of criminal case and his arrest, petitioner was suspended by the competent authority vide order dated 09.07.2020. After suspension of the petitioner, one Pt. Bhardwaj was posted as Incharge Block Education Officer vide order dated 09.07.2020. He contended that as the order imposing penalty has been passed is in violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, the order so far as it relates to imposition of penalty upon the petitioner be set aside. The petitioner, at present is posted in the Office of Joint Director, District Education, Ambikapur.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposes the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that from the contents of order it is appearing that four notices were issued to Public Information Officer-cum-Block Education Officer, Surajpur and when notice was not responded, order has been passed in accordance with provision of the RTI Act which cannot be said to be erroneous.

4. Learned counsel for the State submits that order under challenge is passed by respondent No.2.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents enclosed along with the petition.

6. Order Annexure P-1 passed by respondent No.2 mentions the date of issuance of notice. The first date of issuance of notice is 08.06.2020 and thereafter three other notices were issued on 27.03.2021, 26.08.2021 and 22.01.2022. Annexure P-9 is an order issued by the Commissioner, Sarguja Division, Ambikapur on 09.07.2020 whereby the petitioner was suspended taking note of his arrest in connection with criminal case registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau. It is contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that prior to date of notice, petitioner was arrested which can be gathered from contents of order dated 09.07.2020. From the facts, it is appearing that at no point of time, notice issued by respondent No.2 was served upon him.

7. Section 20 of the RTI Act deals with penalties. Provision under Section 20 of the RTI Act is relevant in the facts of the case and therefore it is extracted below for ready reference:

“20. Penalties.—(1) Where the Central Information Commission 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, refused 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 impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees:

Provided that the C