Penalty and disciplinary recommendation under RTI Act Section 20 require persistent default without reasonable cause; institutional delays from workload and staff shortage not personal fault; biased, hasty orders without awaiting enquiry report quashed.

JUDGMENT :

Swarupama Chaturvedi, J.

1. Heard Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondents concerned and Sri Vinay Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1, Union of India.

2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking reliefs against the orders passed under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 08.02.2007 and 19.03.2007 passed by Dr O. P. Kejriwal, Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission. The petitioner further seeks issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the aforesaid orders dated 08.02.2007 and 19.03.2007, so far as they relate to the petitioner. The petitioner also prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to drop the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner in pursuance of the above mentioned order dated 19.03.2007.

3. The brief fact of the matter is that at the relevant time, the Petitioner, an IPS officer was serving on deputation as the Regional Passport Officer (RPO), as well as Public Information Officer (PIO) in Ghaziabad. On 26.03.2006, respondent no.4, submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking some information regarding duplicate passports, submission forms, procedures and time limits. The Petitioner endorsed the application on the same day, however, the application was returned to the applicant on 14.06.2006, by the Assistant Public Information Officer (APIO) due to the reason that the accompanying demand draft was drawn in favour of "Public Information, Ghaziabad" rather than the "Public Information Officer read with Passport Officer". Thereafter Respondent No. 4, resubmitted the application with the corrected draft on 26.06.2006. The Petitioner marked it to "PRO-I and the APIO, on 04.08.2006, directed the applicant to furnish a "Key Number" and "File Number," stating that the website could not be operated without these details. Aggrieved by this non-furnishing of information respondent no.4 filed a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act with the Central Information Commission (CIC), which has resulted into impugned orders challenged before this court in this petition.

4. The impugned order dated 08.02.2007 records that the information required by respondent no.4 has already been furnished by the petitioner vide letter dated 19.12.2006 and two weeks time was sought from the Commission to resolve the issue with the complainant, which got expired on 24.01.2007, however the PIO and RPO Ghaziabad did not produce any note of satisfaction. The order further records that the Commission decided to initiate penal action against the PIO under section 20(1) of the RTI Act 2005 for the delay of more than four months in providing the information, for which the penalty notice is being issue