Public Information Officers can only be penalized under RTI for failures occurring during their tenure when a request was made, not retroactively for former officers' actions.

ORDER :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 05.05.2020 (Anneuxre-20 to the writ petition) passed by the Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi (hereinafter to be referred as “the Commission”) in Appeal Case No. 1257 of 2013 whereby the learned Commission while modifying the earlier order dated 03.03.2020 passed in the said appeal, has directed that the said order would be effective on the officer who was posted as Public Information Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagar Untari, Garhwa on 09.04.2014. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 03.03.2020 (Anneuxre-18 to the writ petition) passed by the Commission in Appeal Case No. 1257 of 2013 whereby penalty of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed upon the Public Information Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagar Untari, Garhwa under Section 20 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short, “the Act, 2005) to be deducted from salary of the said officer in five equal monthly instalments w.e.f. March, 2020 also with recommendation to initiate departmental proceeding against him/her under Section 20 (2) of the said Act.

2. While assailing the impugned order dated 05.05.2020 passed in Appeal Case No. 1257 of 2013, the main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for not providing the required information to the appellant i.e., the respondent no. 3 herein, as per the direction contained in notice/letter no. 3556 dated 09.04.2014 issued by the Commission particularly because the same is contrary to provisions of Section 20 read with Section 7 (1) of the Act, 2005.

3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, it has already been held by this Court in the case of Tarni Prasad Mukhia Vs. The Jharkhand State Information Commission through its Secretary & Ors., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar. 1132, that the officer, who was posted as Public Information Officer of a particular office on the day the application of the information seeker was received in the said office, can only be said to be responsible to be proceeded with by the Commission under Section 20 (1) or Section 20 (2) of the Act, 2005 as the said officer was under statutory obligation to provide information to the information seeker within the stipulated period of one month from the date of filing of the said application.

4. It is further submitted that learned Commission has committed a serious error in modifying the earlier order dated 03.03.2020, which otherwise was not in conformity with law, by giving direction as contained in the impugned order dated 05.05.2020 that the same would be effective on the officer who was posted as Public Information Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagar Untari, Garhwa on 09.04.2014 i.e. the day the notice/letter no. 3556 was issued by the Commission directing the concerned Public Information Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagar Untari, Garhwa to provide the required information to the respondent no.3. In fact, the petitioner assumed the charge of Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagar Untari on 13.02.2014 whereas the application under the Act, 2005 was received in the said office much earlier on 29.04.2013. Hence, he was neither liable to be saddled with penalty under Section 20 (1) nor to face departmental proceeding as per the recommendation of the Commission under Section 20 (2) of the Act, 2005.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submission, also puts reliance on a judgement rendered by this Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors,