ORDER :

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing order dated 09.05.2011 passed by the Jharkhand State Information Commission in Appeal Case No. 77/2011 issued vide memo no. 5495 dated 10.05.2011 under the signature of the Under Secretary of the Commission, whereby penalty of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner to be recovered from his salary in five equal monthly installments. The responsibility of compliance of the said order has been fixed upon the Principal Secretary, Department of Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih as well as the District Treasury Officer, Giridih.

2. No one appears on behalf of the respondent no. 3, despite service of notice upon him.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 as well as the respondent no. 2 and perused the materials available on record.

4. The respondent no. 3 made an application in the office of the District Welfare Officer, Giridih-cum-Public Information Officer on 28.09.2010 seeking 11-point information. The petitioner was the District Welfare Officer-cum-Public Information Officer of the said office during the relevant period.

5. According to the respondent no. 3, the required information was not provided to him due to which he preferred first appeal on 30.10.2010 before the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih and thereafter filed second appeal before the Jharkhand State Information Commission on 24.12.2010.

6. The original record of Appeal Case No. 77/2011 has been produced by learned counsel for the respondent-Commission on perusal of which it appears that the said appeal was heard for the first time by the Commission on 10.02.2011 and on the said date, the Public Information Officer was not present. The appeal was thereafter taken up on 09.03.2011 and on that day, one Tapeshwar Singh, Sub-Divisional Welfare Officer, Giridih was present on behalf of the Public Information Officer. Since the Public Information Officer was neither present nor had filed reply to the show cause notice issued to him on 10.02.2011, it was observed in the order dated 09.03.2011 that if the Public Information Officer did not provide the point-wise information to the respondent no. 3 and submit the show cause reply by 07.04.2011 i.e., the next date fixed, there would be no other option but to pass an order of punishment against him.

7. It appears that the petitioner, who was the concerned Public Information Officer, was not present on the next date fixed i.e., 07.04.2011. However, since a ‘Band’ was called in Ranchi on 07.04.2011, the said appeal was again adjourned for 09.05.2011 by the Commission. Since the petitioner did not appear on the said date also, the order imposing penalty of Rs.25,000/- against him was passed by the Commission on the said date.

8. Under the aforesaid factual background, this Court proceeds to analyze as to whether the impugned order dated 09.05.2011 passed by the Commission is in accordance with law or the same requires interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

9. It has been specifically pleaded by the petitioner in paragraph nos. 7 and 8 of the writ petition that the required information was already sent to the respondent no. 3 vide letter no. 309 dated 31.03.2011 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) during pendency of Appeal Case No. 77/2011, a copy of which was also communicated to the Under Secretary of the Commission. The said fact was also informed separately to the Under Secretary of the Commission vide letter no. 330 dated 07.04.2011 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) through FAX.

10. On perusal of the original record of the said appeal produced before this Court by learned counsel for the respondent-Commission, it appears that the content of the aforesaid letters dated 31.03.2011 and 07.04.2011 are the same. On further perusal of the letter dated 07.04.2011 issued by the petitioner to the Under Secretary of the Commission, it transpires that the