JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shikhar Anand, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2-State Information Commission.

2. Uttar Pradesh State Warehouse Corporation, the petitioner herein, has challenged the order dated 1.6.2007 passed by the respondent No.2-State Information Commission, Uttar Pradesh passed in Appeal No. S-1-106(C)/07 contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, whereby respondent No.2 has directed the petitioner to dispose off the matter of respondent No.1-Sri Rajnath Tripathi within a month, failing which, proceedings with regard to imposition of punishment against the petitioner would be taken.

3. Shorn off unnecessary details, the relevant facts for determination of the present petition are that vide letter dated 16.11.2006, respondent No.1-Sri Rajnath Tripathi sought an information with regard to the payment of the Transfer Allowance Bill of June, 2002, which was submitted by him on 20.3.2003, under Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "2005 Act"). In pursuance to the letter of the respondent No.1 dated 16.11.2016, the Public Information Officer inquired the matter and Mr. P.R. Gautam, General Manager, Finance was appointed as Inquiry Officer for internal inquiry. The Inquiry Officer, after due inquiry, has submitted its report dated 30.5.2007, stating therein that the respondent No.1 was not transferred from Deoria to Orai, whereas at the relevant time, he was placed under suspension and attached with the Regional Office at Orai, therefore, he cannot claim Transfer Allowance from Deoria to Orai and the Transfer Allowance Bill was found to be forged.

4. According to the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer has also stated in the inquiry report that the employee, who was attached from any other office during the suspension period is only entitled for the Transfer Allowance for the particular journey from his residence to the place, where the enquiry is held, therefore, the respondent No.1 is only entitled to get Transfer Allowance for the journey performed by him for the regional office at Orai

5. It has been averred in the petition that respondent No.1 filed an appeal to the Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh State Warehouse Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Corporation"), mentioning therein that the Public Information Officer has not given the information to him as sought for under the 2005 Act vide letters dated 16.11.2006 and 21.11.2006. On receipt of the letter of the respondent No.1, the appellate authority/Managing Director of the Corporation, vide letter dated 27.2.2007, informed the respondent No.1 that the information as required by him had already been furnished and now no information is remained to be furnished.

6. Not satisfied with the reply of the appellate authority/Managing Director of the Corporation, the respondent No.1 preferred an Appeal before the Information Commissioner, which was registered as Appeal No. S-1-106 (C) of 2007, in which, the Commission, vide order dated 4.5.2007, issued notice to the Corporation (petitioner herein) by fixing 11.5.2007 for hearing and further directed to appear before the Commission along with the reply and other relevant documents.

7. According to the petitioner, notice, which was issued by the Commission vide order dated 4.5.2007, was received in the office of the Corporation (petitioner herein) on 14.5.2007 i.e. after expiry of the dated fixed by the Commission, therefore, the Commission has postponed the proceeding on 11.5.2007 and fixed 1.6.2007 as the date for hearing. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted his reply to the appeal on 1.6.2007, stating therein that with regard to departmental appeal preferred against the order dated 2.5.2005, the meeting was held on 15.11.2006 and the decision so taken in the meeting was informed to the respondent No.1. As regard point no.2 pertaining to the pending allowance bill amounting to Rs.11,069.32 of June, 2002, office order d