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.

JUDGMENT :

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 26.02.2015 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) passed by the Acting Chief Information Commissioner, Ranchi (the respondent no. 1) in second appeal being Appeal no. 2860 of 2011 preferred by the respondent no. 2 which was communicated to the petitioner vide memo no. 4559 dated 14.05.2015 issued under the signature of Under Secretary, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi, whereby penalty of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed upon him under Section 20 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short, “the Act, 2005”) to be deducted from his salary in five equal monthly instalments w.e.f. March, 2015.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Sanjeev Kumar Khandelwal (the respondent no. 2) had sought certain information from the Public Information Officer-cum-Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Giridih vide his application dated 04.08.2011 which was not provided to him within statutory period for which he preferred first appeal before the Deputy Commissioner-cum-First Appellate Authority, Giridih vide his application dated 10.09.2011. Thereafter, the required information not having been furnished, the respondent no. 2 preferred second appeal before the Chief Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi on 30.10.2011 which was registered as Appeal No. 2860 of 2011. Subsequently, a notice was issued to the then Public Information Officer-cum- Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Giridih vide letter no. 2310 dated 10.03.2012.

3. It is further submitted that the petitioner had taken charge of Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Giridih on 12.07.2013 and he came to know about the pendency of the second appeal before the respondent no. 1 for the first time on 20.11.2013 when the order dated 04.11.2013 as contained in memo no. 9282 dated 13.11.2013 was communicated to him.

4. It is also submitted that though the required information was already provided to the respondent no. 2 by the then Public Information Officer-cum-Executive Officer, Giridih Nagar Parishad, Giridih vide letter no. 343 dated 13.01.2012, however the petitioner once again forwarded the said letter to the respondent no.2 in the light of direction passed by the respondent no. 1 vide order as contained in memo no. 7789 dated 11.09.2014 which was communicated by the petitioner to the Under Secretary In-charge, State Information Commission, vide letter no. 7703 dated 09.10.2014. The petitioner, vide letter no.292 dated 18.02.2015, once again provided the copy of entire information to the respondent no.2 which was earlier provided to him vide letter no. 343 dated 13.01.2012 and the same was intimated to the Under Secretary, State Information Commission, Ranchi, vide letter no. 296 dated 19.02.2015. Despite that, the respondent no. 1, vide impugned order dated 26.02.2015, imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000/- upon the petitioner under Section 20 (1) of the Act, 2005 directing that the same would be deducted from his salary in five equal monthly instalments w.e.f. March, 2015 on account of delay committed in providing information to the respondent no. 2. It was also observed in the said order that the petitioner was directed to file show cause reply regarding delay caused in providing the required information to the respondent no. 2 which was not submitted by him and his said act reflected that he was not serious in compliance of the order passed by the respondent no. 1.

5. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had taken charge of Public Information Officer only on 12.07.2013 and as such he cannot be held liable for the penalty imposed under section 2