The duty of the public authority to maintain records and supply correct information as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act, and the penal provisions of Section 20(2) of the Act are crucial in ensuring transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities.

JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

1. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Writ Court, whereby the petition filed by respondent No. 1 came to be allowed and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- and compensation of Rs. 50,000/- have been imposed and ordered to be paid by the appellant and respondent No. 5 and action as per sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Right to Information Act has also been directed to be initiated against the appellant, the appellant has filed the instant Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal are that respondent No. 1 filed an application before respondent No. 5 vide Annexure P-1 for supply of certain information. The same, in turn, was forwarded to the office of Block Development Officer, Dharamshala, being manned by the appellant on 30.03.2010. The Panchayat Sahayak, Gram Panchayat, Khanyara informed the office of the appellant that photocopies of the documents were being supplied to respondent No. 1/petitioner and the same were annexed with the letter dated 23.04.2010. Since, the documents sought for by the petitioner which were copies of applications dated 19.05.2006, 20.05.2006 and 16/17.05.2006 were not supplied to him, therefore, he submitted an application to the Block Development Officer, Dharamshala on 29.04.2010 stating therein that the information supplied was not acceptable to him and he also sought address of the next appellate authority. Thereafter, respondent No. 1/petitioner was informed vide letter dated 01.05.2010 that the information sought by him is also being supplied by annexing letter dated 30.04.2010 whereby the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Khanyara informed the office of the appellant that the record of the Panchayat was verified, but the aforesaid letters dated 19.05.2006, 20.05.2006 and 16/16.05.2006 were not found in the record.

3. Being aggrieved by the incorrect and misleading information supplied to him, respondent No. 1/petitioner filed an appeal before the ADC-cum-Appellate Authority vide Annexure P-6 on 31.05.2006. It was specifically stated therein that the information supplied by the office of the appellant was not correct. The matter was examined by the SEBPO, Dharamshala and he submitted the copy of the reply of the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Khanyara, a copy whereof also supplied to respondent No. 1/petitioner on 17.07.2010, on which date the case came to be closed.

4. The matter was un-successfully assailed before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kangra, Chief Information Commissioner and thereafter before the State Information Commissioner and ultimately before this Court in CWP No. 8794, wherein it was contended that since the appellant and the Prandhan, Gram Panchayat, Khanyara had supplied incorrect information, penalty was required to be imposed on them and in addition thereto action to be drawn against the officials for imparting wrong information.

5. The learned Writ Court allowed the petition by concluding that the appellant as also the Pradhan had not supplied correct information and imposed the penalty, compensation and ordered the inquiry, as aforesaid.

6. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant/Block Development Officer filed the instant appeal on the ground that the findings recorded by the learned Writ Court are contrary to record and, therefore, deserve to be set aside.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

7. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 1 had asked for supply of documents dated 19.05.2006, 20.05.2006 and 16/17.05.2006 vide Annexure P-1, dated 10.03.2010.

8. It is also not in dispute that the incorrect information was supplied to the petitioner as per Annexure P-3, dated 23.04.2010 by the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Khanyara through the appellant. He had been supplied the photo copies of the letter dated 23.04.2010, 21.04.2006 and 24.05.2009 and not the letters as referred to in Annexure P-1. It was then that respondent No. 1 brought to the notice of the ap