Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Rajesh Shankar
George Kumar, S/o Sri James Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha – Respondent
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 f
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.
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....
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....
(1) There is clear distinction in between “Public Authority” within meaning of Section 2(h) and “Public Information Officer” within meaning of Section 2(m) of Right to Information Act, 2005.(2) Award....
The main legal point established is that compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 can only be imposed if the complainant proves sustaining any loss or other detriment....
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
