Mr. Augustine George Masih, J. (Oral):- Petitioner has approached this Court impugning the order dated 24.06.2011 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Central Information Commissioner-respondent No.1 vide which respondents No.2 and 3 have been exonerated of the charges, which would attract penalty under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act from the Central Public Information Officer-respondent No.3, which information was denied leading to the petitioner filing of appeal before respondent No.2, which was also dismissed on the ground that the departmental proceedings were pending against the petitioner and, therefore, the information could not be supplied to him. His contention is that this order was factually wrong as the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner stood concluded vide order dated 15.07.2010 and penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has sought information on 09.07.2010, which was rejected by the Central Public Information Officer vide order dated 10.08.201