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 position at the time of the information request.

ORDER :

RAJESH SHANKAR, J.

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.03.2016 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) passed by the Chief Information Commissioner, Ranchi in Appeal No. 1270 of 2015 preferred by the respondent no. 8 which was communicated to all concerned persons including the petitioner vide memo no. 8212 dated 20.04.2016 issued under the signature of Authorised Officer, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi (the respondent no. 3), whereby a sum of Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner as penalty under Section 20 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short, “the Act, 2005”) to be recovered from his salary in two equal monthly instalments w.e.f. April, 2016.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 8 sought certain information on 15.09.2014 from the office of the District Education Officer, Godda and accordingly the erstwhile District Education Officer-cum-Public Information Officer, Godda, directed the erstwhile District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer, “Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan”, Godda to provide required information to the respondent no. 8. However, the said information was not provided to the respondent no. 8 and aggrieved with the same, he filed first appeal before the Regional Deputy Director of Education-cum-First Appellate Authority, Dumka. The required information not having been furnished to the petitioner, he subsequently preferred appeal before the Jharkhand Information Commission, Ranchi which was registered as Appeal No. 1270 of 2015.

3. It is further submitted that the petitioner joined the post of District Superintendent of Education, Godda on 02.07.2015 who, vide letter no. 105 dated 12.03.2016, nominated the respondent no. 6 as deemed Public Information Officer, Godda and the said respondent, vide letter no. 294 dated 15.03.2016, informed the respondent no. 1 with respect to providing the required information to the respondent no. 8. Despite that, the Chief Information Commissioner, vide impugned order dated 16.03.2016 imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- upon the petitioner without giving him any opportunity of hearing.

4. It is also submitted that the Chief Information Commissioner while passing the impugned order failed to appreciate that the Jharkhand Education Project Council, Ranchi, vide letter no. 1351 dated 26.05.2010, had directed the District Superintendents of Education-cum-District Programme Officers of all the districts to nominate any one “Assistant Programme Officer” as “Public Information Officer” and “Additional District Programme Officer” as “First Appellate Authority” of the respective district.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 3 submits that the Chief Information Commissioner has rightly passed the impugned order dated 16.03.2016 as the information sought by the respondent no. 8 was provided to him after delay of nine months which was in violation of the provisions of the Act, 2005.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

7. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner cannot be held liable for any delay in providing information to the respondent no. 8 since the application for required information was filed by him on 15.09.2014 whereas the petitioner joined the post of District Superintendent of Education, Godda on 02.07.2015 i.e., after more than 9 months from the date of filing of the said application. If