ORDER :

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20th May, 2016 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) passed by the Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi in Appeal Case No. 2847 of 2015, whereby the learned Commission has recommended for initiation of departmental proceeding against the petitioner in terms with Section 20(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act 2005’) with an observation that if legible information was not made available to the respondent no. 4, an order of penalty in terms with Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005 would be passed against the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application of the respondent no. 4 seeking information under the Act, 2005 was received on 16th June, 2015 in the office of the petitioner, who happened to be the Circle Officer, Lohardaga-cum-Public Information Officer. The petitioner promptly furnished information to the respondent no. 4 vide letter no. 613 dated 14th July, 2015 through registered post on 15th July, 2015, however, the respondent no. 4 claiming that the said information provided to him was not legible filed first appeal and thereafter second appeal before the Jharkhand State Information Commission being Appeal Case no. 2847 of 2015. The petitioner received notice issued by the Commission vide letter no. 23266 dated 29th December, 2015, wherein it was mentioned that the next date of Appeal Case no. 2847 of 2015 was fixed on 1st March, 2016. It was also mentioned in the said letter/notice that the petitioner should ensure furnishing information to the respondent no. 4 through speed post/registered post and a copy of the same as well as entire record of the first appellate authority along with explanation should be produced before the Commission on the said date.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after receiving the notice issued by learned Commission, the petitioner again sent information to the respondent no. 4 vide letter no. 90 dated 27th January, 2016. The respondent no. 4 after filing of the second appeal before the Commission again submitted an application before the petitioner on 4th February, 2016 stating that he had sought eight information, but only five information had been provided to him, which were not correct and legible. According to the petitioner, information no. 8 sought by the respondent no. 4 vide his application dated 4th February, 2016 was a new one.

4. It is also submitted that the petitioner met with an accident on 28th February, 2016 and he was admitted in a hospital on 29th February, 2016 for surgery of his left elbow. Under the said circumstance, the petitioner could not appear before the Commission on 1st March, 2016. Learned Commission, however, vide order dated 1st March, 2016 provided last opportunity to the petitioner to furnish all legible information to the respondent no. 4 and to comply all the orders of the Commission failing which it would be compelled to take action under Sections 20(1) and 20(2) of the Act, 2005. Thereafter, the case was adjourned for 20th May, 2016.

5. It is further submitted that on 20th May, 2016 i.e. next date in Appeal Case No. 2847 of 2015, there was “Sankh Mahotsaw” in Lohardaga and several dignitaries of the State were scheduled to visit the said place in which the petitioner was busy in maintaining law and order and due to the said reason, he could not appear before the Commission on 20th May, 2016. Learned Commission, however, vide order dated 20th May, 2016 made serious observation against the petitioner that he was deliberately not complying its orders and, accordingly, recommended for initiation of departmental proceeding against him by exercising power under Section 20(2) of the Act, 2005. Though the petitioner could not appear before the Commission on 1st March, 2016 and 20th May, 2016, he again provided legible information to the respondent no. 4 by se