ORDER :

1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 19.01.2023 whereby Respondent No. 1 has passed an order imposing penalty under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short “RTI Act”) against petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the order imposing penalty against petitioner is passed without giving opportunity of hearing to him. Petitioner though was posted as Tahsildar, Ambikapur when the application under the RTI Act was filed, however, petitioner was transferred to district Rajnandgaon in the year 2018 vide order dated 31.07.2018 and pursuant to the order of transfer he was also relieved on 23.08.2018. It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that issuance of notice which is forming part of the impugned order Annexure P-1 to the Tahsildar, Ambikapur was on 13.11.2019 and thereafter on the date of issuance of notice petitioner was not posted inthe office of Tahsildar, Ambikapur and therefore he was not aware of the proceedings initiated and pending before Respondent No.1. For the said reasons, petitioner failed to appear and submit his explanation/ reply to the show-cause notice and could not able to defend in appropriate manner and therefore the order Annexure P-1 imposing penalty upon petitioner is in violation of principles of natural justice and it be set aside. In support of this contention that petitioner was transferred vide order dated 31.07.2018 and relieved on 23.08.2018, he relied upon the memo dated 08.10.2018, Annexure P-3. He submits that petitioner is presently posted as Nazul Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh.

3. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 submits that Respondent No. 1 while considering the second appeal has particularly recorded that eight notices were issued to Tahsildar, Ambikapur, however, reply to any of the notice was not submitted and thereafter Respondent No. 1 has passed the order Annexure P-1 which cannot be said to be erroneous.

4. Learned State counsel also referred to the paragraph 6 of the order Annexure P-1 and would submit that Respondent No. 1 has issued about seven notices to the petitioner and therefore the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice is not acceptable.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Perusal of order Annexure P-1 would show that the State Information Commissioner in paragraph 6 has recorded date on which notice were issued to Public Information Officer cum Tahsildar, Ambikapur, first notice was issued on 13.11.2019 and subsequently in the year 2021 and 2022. Copy of memo Annexure P-3 which is placed on record is dated 08.10.2018 issued by the Additional Collector, Sarguja to the Collector, District Rajnandgaon mentions that pursuant to the order of transfer dated 31.07.2018 issued by the State Government, petitioner-was relieved from the office of Tahsildar, Ambikapur on 23.08.2018. From the said document, it is appearing that on the date of issuance of notice on 13.11.2019, petitioner was not holding the post of Public Information Officer cum Tahsildar, Ambikapur. From the order it is also reflecting that the incumbent who joined the post of Tahsildar at office at Ambikapur has also not sent any information to Respondent No. 1 of the transfer of the then Public Information Officer ie. petitioner by submitting any reply/ application.

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 informa