Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, C.J., RAJESH SHANKAR
Md. Naeem Ansari, son of Phool Mohammad – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
1. The petitioner is a Judicial Officer (Under Suspension).
2. The petitioner made an application under Right to Information Act, 2005, before the Judge Incharge Cum State Public Information Officer, Civil Court, Giridih seeking information with regard to the following aspects:
1. T.A. and Disturbance Allowance Bill Petition dt. 1.1.2018.
2. T.A. Bill Petition dt. 5.4.2019.
3. Newspaper and Magazine Bill Reimbursement Petition dt. 4.12.2018.
4. Pool Car or Fuel Bill Payment Petition dt. 18.2.2019.
5. Medical Bill Payment Petition dt. 31.1.2020.
6. Medical Bill Payment Attestation Petition dt. 20.09.2019.
7. T.A. and D.A. Bill Payment Petition dt. 19.2.2020.
8. Attendance Register Opening Date relating to Suspended Officer.
(The name of authority satisfy said of attendance register.)
9. No. of days of each month in which subsistence allowance was paid to the petitioner from year 2018 to 2020.
3. A response thereto was given on 21.04.2020 by the said authority. In the said reply, it has been stated as follows:
1. In respect to query no.1 as per T.A. Rule, it is not mentioned anywhere in the T.A. Rule that T.A. and D.A. will be admissible during the period of
The Right to Information Act cannot be misused to harass public officials, and allowances during suspension are not permitted under applicable service rules.
Information related to disciplinary proceedings and confidential reports of public servants is categorized as personal information and exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Inf....
The State Information Commission lacks jurisdiction to recommend disciplinary action against the First Appellate Authority under Section 20(2) of the Right to Information Act, and must adhere to prin....
The SPIO's consultation with legal authorities does not inherently undermine its independence when determining exemptions under the RTI Act.
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 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 must comply with the Right to Information Act's requirements to provide information within 30 days; failure results in penalties to ensure accountability.
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....
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
