JUDGMENT :

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 18th February, 2019 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) passed by the Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Commission’) in Appeal Case no.2080 of 2015, whereby the District Programme Officer-cum-Public Information Officer, Bokaro- respondent no.4 has been imposed penalty of Rs.25,000/- under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act, 2005’) and recommendation has been made for initiation of departmental proceeding against the said officer under Section 20(2) of the said Act with a further direction to the District Programme Officer, Bokaro, who was posted on 14th November, 2017, to get Rs.5,000/- deducted from his/her salary in five equal instalments and to deposit the same in the district treasury as well as to send its proof to the Commission.

2. The relevant facts emanating from the writ petition is that the petitioner was posted as District Superintendent of Education-cum- District Programme Officer, Bokaro-cum-Public Information Officer for the period from 6th July, 2015 to 14th September, 2018. Thereafter, she was transferred to the post of District Superintendent of Education, Deoghar on 15th September, 2018 and she joined the said post on 18th September, 2018.

3. The respondent no.6 filed an application under the Act, 2005 on 28th August, 2014 addressing the District Education Officer-cum-Public Information Officer, Bokaro, seeking third party information, which, according to the petitioner, was sent to the respondent no.6 by her predecessor i.e. the respondent no.4 vide letter no.34/R.T.I./07/14- 15/181 dated 14th February, 2015 through registered post with A/D. Despite providing the said information, the respondent no.6 again filed similar application on 9th April, 2015 before the respondent no.4, which, according to the petitioner, was also sent to him vide letter no.34/R.T.I./07/14-15/840 dated 6th July, 2015. The required information was once again provided to the respondent no.6 by the respondent no.4 vide letter dated 6th November, 2015 in pursuance of his application dated 2nd September, 2015 and information to that effect was also sent to the Commission vide letter dated 26th April, 2017, stating that in compliance of memo no.26875 dated 28th November, 2016 information was already provided to the respondent no.6.

4. However, on 14th November, 2017 an order was passed by the Commission, directing the petitioner to provide information to the respondent no.6 under her certificate, as the information was earlier provided to him by the concerned third party i.e. Sadhucharan Rawani and the next date was fixed as 14th June, 2018.

5. Finally, vide impugned order dated 18th February, 2019, the Commission imposed penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon the concerned Public Information Officer under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005 and also recommended for initiation of departmental proceeding against him/her under Section 20(2) of the Act, 2005 with a further direction to the District Programme Officer, Bokaro, who was posted on 14th November, 2017, to get Rs.5,000/- per month deducted from his/her salary in five equal instalments and to deposit the same in the district treasury as well as to send its proof to the Commission.

6. Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 submits that though the counter affidavit has not been filed on behalf of the said respondent, yet he has procured the original record of Appeal Case no.2080 of 2015 from the office of the Commission for proper adjudication of this case. He defends the impugned order dated 18th February, 2019 and submits that since the petitioner, while functioning as the Public Information Officer of the concerned office, did not comply the order dated 14th November, 2017 passed by the Commission, she has rightly been imposed penalty under Section 20(