JUDGMENT :

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 11.08.2008 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) passed by the Jharkhand State Information Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’) in Appeal No. 688/2007 whereby a penalty of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2005’) upon the petitioner to be deducted from his salary in five equal instalments as well as recommendation has been made for initiation of departmental proceeding against him under Section 20(2) of the Act, 2005.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner held the post of the Public Information Officer-cum-Conservator of Forest, Core Area, Tiger Project, Daltonganj at the time of filing of the writ petition. The petitioner received a letter on 17.01.2008 issued by the Under Secretary of the Commission annexing a copy of order dated 18.12.2007 passed by the Commission in Appeal No. 688/2007 communicated to him vide memo No. 8079 dated 20.12.2007 whereby he was directed to remain physically present before the Commission on 21.01.2008. Thereafter, he intimated the Commission vide letter No. 111 dated 21.01.2008 that his office had never received any application of the respondent No.2 seeking information and also requested to make available a copy of the application of the respondent No.2 so that the required information could be provided. The petitioner also stated inter alia that since the said letter of the Commission was not received by him in time, he was unable to remain physically present on 21.01.2008. Subsequently, notice was issued by the Under Secretary of the Commission to the petitioner on 22.01.2008 whereby he was directed to remain physically present before the Commission on the next date i.e. 19.02.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner deputed the Head Clerk of his office, namely, Nawal Kishore Sinha to appear before the Commission on 19.02.2008 and on the said date, a copy of the memo of appeal filed by the respondent No.2 before the Commission was served to the representative of the petitioner whereby two points information was sought. Before the next date of hearing i.e. on 18.03.2008, the required information relating to the funds granted by the government for the years 2005-2006 & 2006-2007 along with expenditure incurred under several heads of forestry and wildlife (Tiger Project) was sent by the petitioner to the Commission vide letter No. 463 dated 14.03.2008 and so far as the second information was concerned, the Commission was informed that a cost of Rs.2,000/- was required to be deposited by the respondent No.2 for getting 500 copies of the Muster Roll used for the year 2005-2006 & 2006-2007.

3. The petitioner was further informed that the next date of hearing was on 22.04.2008, however, he could not appear on the said date. Thereafter, he did not receive any information either from the Commission or from the respondent No.2 and as such he was under bonafide belief that his response sent to the Commission was accepted as he had partly furnished the required information and had also expressed his willingness to provide other part of required information by supplying photo copies of the Muster Roll on payment of cost. On perusal of the impugned order dated 11.08.2008, it however appears that after 22.04.2008, as many as five dates were fixed in the matter, however, the petitioner had no knowledge about the same and hence there was no question of violation of any order of the Commission by him.

4. It is further submitted that the Commission has wrongly held that there is no provision in the Act, 2005 to make payment of any fee for furnishing the required information and the said finding of the Commission is contrary to Section 7(1) of the Act, 2005 as well as Rule 4 of the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005. Otherwise also, on 19.02.2008, the petitioner received a copy of the M