Public Information Officer is not liable for delays not caused during their tenure; penalties require evidence of wrongdoing and loss to justify compensation under the Right to Information Act.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Shankar, J.

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 08.09.2014 as contained in memo no. 10478 dated 22.12.2014 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) issued under the signature of the respondent no. 3 – the Under Secretary, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi in Appeal Case No. 108 of 2011, whereby a sum of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed as penalty against the petitioner under the provision of Section 20 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2005”) and the same has been directed to be realized from his monthly salary @ Rs.5000/- per month with further direction to the department of the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the respondent no. 5 under the provision of Section 19 (8)(b) of the Act, 2005 for not furnishing the information to him under the said Act. Further prayer has been made for quashing the letter as contained in memo no. 76/Ra. dated 16.04.2015 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition), whereby the respondent No. 4 has asked the petitioner to pay the aforesaid compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the respondent no. 5 out of his own earned resources.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was posted as Addl. Collector, Palamu-cum-Public Information Officer from 15.01.2014 to 01.09.2014 and during the said period, he received memo no. 2042 dated 06.03.2014 and memo no. 5400 dated 02.07.2014 issued under the signature of the In-charge Under Secretary, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi, wherefrom he came to know that one Rajnikant Pandey (the respondent no. 5) had filed an application under the Act, 2005 vide his application dated 13.09.2010 for obtaining certain information from the then Public Information Officer-cum-Addl. Collector, Palamu and an appeal filed by him being Appeal No. 108 of 2011 before the State Information Commission was pending for the information related to Sl. No. 3 of the application of the respondent no. 5.

3. It is further submitted that the petitioner having come to know about the pendency of the said appeal, immediately took all efforts to procure the same as the relevant files were missing. The petitioner appeared before the State Information Commission on 18.07.2014 and on the said date, the Information Commissioner, Ranchi granted two weeks’ time to the petitioner to disseminate Information to the appellant/respondent no. 5 through speed post/registered post and also directed the petitioner to file his reply to the show-cause notice fixing the next date of hearing on 08.09.2014.

4. It is further submitted that since the file from which the desired information was to be supplied was missing, the petitioner issued letters to the custodian of records and after receiving his reply dated 24.07.2014, he filed ‘Sanha’ before the concerned Police Station vide his letter no. 663/Ra., dated 24.07.2014 in order to obtain order of the Deputy Commissioner, Palamu to open a duplicate one. The petitioner also filed an application before the In-charge Under Secretary, Jharkhand State information Commission vide letter no. 126/Ra. dated 26.07.2014 for grant of some more time to file reply to the show-cause notice as he was to attend some training programme of the Election Commission of India at New Delhi.

5. In the meantime, the petitioner was transferred from the post of Additional Collector-cum-Public Information Officer, Palamu to Ranchi as State Protocol Officer, Cabinet Secretariat & Coordinating Department, Government of Jharkhand and accordingl