The main legal point established is that under the Right to Information Act, 2005, a Public Information Officer is not liable for delay in providing information if it is supplied within the required time frame after joining the post.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 06.12.2013 passed by the respondent No.4 in Appeal No. 557/2012 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) whereby the petitioner as a Public Information Officer despite having supplied the information to the complainant-appellant (the respondent No.5), the respondent No.4 treated his show cause reply as unsatisfactory and imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- against him under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2005’] with a direction to the respondent No.3 as well as the District Treasury Officer, Garhwa to realise the said amount and to deposit the same in the government exchequer.

2. The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the application made by the respondent No.5 under the Act, 2005 was received in the office of the District Social Welfare Officer, Gahrwa on 20.09.2011. The petitioner was not the Public Information Officer during the said period, rather he joined as the District Social Welfare Officer, Garhwa on 04.07.2013. He thereafter supplied the information to the respondent No.5 after obtaining the same from the office of the Child Development Project Officer, Gahrwa on 03.08.2013 i.e. within 30 days from the date of his joining as the District Social Welfare Officer, Garhwa-cum-Public Information Officer. The said fact was duly explained by him in his reply to the show cause submitted before the Jharkhand State Information Commission vide letter No. 567 dated 31.10.2013 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition). In view of the said situation, the impugned order dated 06.12.2013 passed by the respondent No.4 being factually incorrect is liable to be set aside.

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

4. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel for the respondent-Commission, submits that the petitioner has been imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005 by the Jharkhand State Information Commission primarily due to the reason that the information sought by the respondent No.5 from the office of the District Social Welfare Officer, Garhwa was supplied after about two years.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. On perusal of the petitioner’s reply to the show cause as contained in letter No. 567 dated 31.10.2013, it appears that the petitioner had specifically stated inter alia that he had taken charge of the District Social Welfare Officer, Garhwa on 04.07.2013. Admittedly, the information was provided to the respondent No.5 on 03.08.2013. Since the petitioner after joining the post of the District Social Welfare Officer, Gahrwa on 04.07.2013, supplied the information to the respondent No.5 on 03.08.2013 i.e. within 30 days, it cannot be said that there was any laches on his part. At best the officer who was posted as the District Social Welfare Officer, Garhwa-cum-Public Information Officer on the date of the application i.e. 20.09.2011, could have been held responsible for not providing information to the respondent No.5 in time.

6. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 06.12.2013 passed by the respondent No.4 in Appeal No. 557/2012 cannot sustain in law and the same is hereby quashed and set aside.

7. The present writ petition is accordingly allowed.