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 before imposing penalties or recommending disciplinary actions.

JUDGMENT :

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 07.06.2019 passed by the State Information Commissioner (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) in Appeal Case No. 1994/2015 preferred by the respondent No.3 whereby the petitioner, who at that time was holding the post of the District Engineer-cum-Public Information Officer, Zila Parishad, Gumla, was imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2005’] and his controlling officer was directed to initiate departmental proceeding against him under Section 20(2) of the Act, 2005.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the information under Section 6 of the Act, 2005 was sought by the respondent No.3 from the office of the District Engineer, Zila Parishad, Gumla-cum-Public Information Officer on 05.08.2014 which was supplied to him on 30.08.2014. The respondent No.3 being dissatisfied with the furnished information, preferred first appeal before the respondent No.2 on 29.09.2014 and during the said proceeding, the information in part was provided to him on 18.10.2014. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 preferred second appeal before the State Information Commission, Jharkhand [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’] which was registered as Appeal Case No. 1994/2015. The then Public Information Officer, Zila Parishad, Gumla vide his letter No.1 dated 08.01.2016, wrote to the respondent No.3 that all the desired informations were already furnished to him and his request to provide detailed information in specific format, as framed by him, did not fall under the provisions of the Act, 2005 and hence the same could not be provided to him. During pendency of the said appeal before the Commission, the petitioner joined the post of the District Engineer, Zila Parishad, Gumla in the month of July, 2017 and thereafter being the Public Information Officer of the said office, he appeared before the Commission on different dates. The matter was heard on 07.06.2019 and the petitioner requested for time since the dealing clerk was on leave and the petitioner had no knowledge about the file.

3. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order dated 07.06.2019 passed by the Information Commissioner is that a penalty of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed against the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005 and a direction has been given to his controlling authority to initiate departmental proceeding against him under Section 20(2) of the Act, 2005 without appreciating the fact that the petitioner was actually not involved in providing the information to the respondent No.3 during the relevant period. In fact, he joined the said post on much later date that too after about two years of filing of the appeal before the Commission.

4. It is further submitted that the Information Commissioner transgressed the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, 2005 while imposing penalty as well as directing the controlling authority to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner did not violate any of the conditions as mentioned in sub-section (1) as well as sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, 2005 so as to be imposed a penalty as well as to face the departmental proceeding. Perusal of the impugned order dated 07.06.2019 would clearly suggest that the Information Commissioner instead of following the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, 2005, has discussed about the conduct of the petitioner which is not at all relevant while exercising the power under the said Section.

5. No one appears on behalf of the respondent No.3 despite valid service of notice to him.

6. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, submits that despite specific direction of the Information Commissioner, no show cause reply was filed by the petitioner. Moreover, he made contrary statements before the Commission. In fact, on