Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
Ravindra Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 1499 of 2020
Decided On : 24-06-2024
(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 20(2) - Quashing of order - The petitioner challenged the order recommending departmental proceedings against him for failure to provide information under the Act - The court found that the petitioner was not the deemed Public Information Officer at the relevant time and thus quashed the order. (Paras 17 and 18)
(B) Public Information Officer - Duties and responsibilities - The court emphasized the statutory duty of the Public Information Officer to provide information within the prescribed time frame and the implications of failing to do so. (Paras 5 and 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of not providing information requested under the Right to Information Act, leading to disciplinary proceedings against him. The court examined the timeline of postings and responsibilities of the petitioner.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the petitioner was not the deemed Public Information Officer at the time of the request and thus the disciplinary proceedings were unjustified.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was the deemed Public Information Officer when the request was made and the implications of his failure to respond.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner could not be held liable for failing to provide information as he was not in the relevant position at the time of the request, thus the disciplinary action was unwarranted.
Result: The order recommending disciplinary proceedings was quashed and the writ petition was allowed.
ORDER :
1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 24.02.2020 as contained in memo no. 3218 dated 02.03.2020 (Annexure-16 to the writ petition) passed by the Acting Chief Information Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi (the respondent no. 2) in Appeal Case No. 2170 of 2012, whereby the said respondent recommended for initiation of departmental/disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner under Section 20(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2005”).
2. Reference is made to order dated 11.06.2024, which reads as under:
“1. It has been reported by the office that pursuant to the order dated 8th September, 2022, the notice issued to the respondent no. 3 through ordinary process has been received by him.
2. The service of notice upon the said respondent is thus complete.
3. No one appears on behalf of respondent no. 3.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent no. 2 for a while.
5. Before proceeding further in the matter, the petitioner is directed to file supplementary affidavit within one week disclosing his places of posting and the period thereof with effect from 22nd May, 2012, i.e. the date of application filed by the respondent no. 3 under Right to Information Act, 2005 in the office of the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Ranchi Division (Rural) till the date of passing of the impugned order dated 24th February, 2020 by the Jharkhand State Information Commission in Appeal No. 2170 of 2012.
6. Put up this case under the heading “For Admission (Fixed Cases)” on 24th June, 2024.”
3. Pursuant to the said order, a supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner on 15.06.2024 giving the details of his places of posting during the aforesaid period, the relevant paragraphs of which read as under:
“3. That the petitioner further states that by notification dated 23.10.2009 at Para No. 5, the petitioner was being posted as Asstt. Engineer, State Highway Authority in N.H. Road Circle, Dhanbad which is quite clear from the notification of Road Construction Department dated 23.10.2009.
4. That it is further stated that he remained there for a long period of 7 years and after that the Government of Jharkhand by notification dated 07.01.2016 transferred the petitioner from the post of Asstt. Engineer, N.H. Road Circle, Dhanbad to the Asstt. Engineer, Road Lower Division-2, Ramgarh which is quite clear from Para-137 of above-mentioned notification.
5. That the petitioner states that from the office order of Supdt. Engineer, National Highway Circle, Dhanbad, it appears that the petitioner was again released from Dhanbad Circle and allowed to join the newly posted assignment of Asstt. Engineer, State Highway, Ramgarh.
6. That the petitioner further states that from the notification dated 12.06.2018, it appears that the petitioner was posted as Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Lohardaga.
7. That the petitioner officiated there as an Executive Engineer till 07.08.2023 and again on the same very date, the petitioner was again transferred to Executive Engineer, Urban Development and Housing Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi, and after that the petitioner now officiating as Executive Engineer, Housing Board, Hazaribagh.”
4. Admittedly, the respondent no. 3 made an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 22.05.2012 before the Public Information Officer, Office of the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Ranchi (Rural). At that time, the petitioner was posted as Asstt. Engineer, State Highway Authority in N.H. Road Circle, Dhanbad.
5. Pursuant to filing of the said application by the respondent no. 3 on 22.05.2012, the Public Information Officer, Office of the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Ranchi (Rural) was under the statutory duty either to provide the required information to the respondent no. 3 or to reject the request for any
AI
The court ruled that a Public Information Officer cannot be held accountable for failing to provide information if they were not in the relevant position at the time of the request.
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.
The main legal point established is that under the Right to Information Act, 2005, a Public Information Officer is not liable for delay in providing information if it is supplied within the required ....
Imposing a penalty under RTI Act, 2005 requires the Public Information Officer to be given a chance to be heard, and liability under Section 20 cannot apply retroactively to an officer who was not in....
Officers can only be penalized for information delays if they were in charge at the time of the request; newly appointed officers are not liable for prior delays.
The court established that the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, 2005 should be strictly construed, and the Commissioner must ensure that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide b....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
