An order imposing penalties or recommending disciplinary action under the RTI Act is unsustainable if the adjudicating authority fails to ensure and record satisfaction regarding the service of the show cause notice, as it violates the principles of natural justice.

Order on Board

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.07.13 10:58:36 +0530

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

“(10.1) It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the present case, for its kind perusal.

(10.2) This Hon'ble Court may kindly Pleased to issue an appropriate Writ and set-aside the impugned order dated 19.10.2020 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent no 2.

(10.3) Any other relief / relief's which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition may also be pleased to be granted to the petitioner.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner while working on the post of Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Korba and also holding post of Public Information Officer. Respondent No.4 filed application under Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short “Act of 2005”) seeking information on the points as mentioned therein. Information as sought for by respondent No.4 could not be provided because the petitioner was not in possession of relevant records. He had issued letters in this regard to the concerned Sections and Department of the Municipal Corporation, Korba and has further informed to respondent No.3/Municipal Corporation of non-availability of the information with him as sought for by the applicant. She also submits that as soon as petitioner came in possession of the records and documents by which information could be provided, the information was sent to respondent No.4 through registered post which he refused to accept. She contended that respondent No.2 while passing the impugned order on 19.10.2020 of imposing penalty under Section 20 (1) and making recommendation for initiation of disciplinary proceeding against petitioner under Section 20 (2) of the Act of 2005, had not given proper opportunity of hearing to him. Referring to para-9 of the proceeding dated 19.10.2020, it is argued that in the proceeding dated 19.10.2020 extracted the order sheet dated 18.09.2019 wherein direction was issued to concerned Clerk to forward the copy of order sheet as also to issue show cause notice as to why action under Section 20 (1) and 20 (2) of the Act of 2005 be not taken against the petitioner. However, copy of notice was not received. She also submits that show cause notice was issued in the proceeding dated 18.09.2019, however, without ascertaining the fact that as to whether the notice issued by respondent No.2 was served upon the petitioner or not, only observing that reply has not been submitted, respondent No.2 has passed the order impugned, which is in violation of principle of natural justice. In support of her submission, she places reliance upon the decision in the case of Manohar S/o Manikrao Anchule Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in (2012) 13 SCC 14.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would vehemently oppose the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that pursuant to observation made by this Court on the last date of hearing, along with reply he has enclosed documents to show that notice as ordered was dispatched to the petitioner on 25.10.2019 through registered post and he has also enclosed copy of entries of the letter booked by MBC, Raipur RMS. Letter sent to Municipal Corporation Korba is mentioned at Sr. No.141 and date of booking is shown as 26.10.2019. Therefore, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the notice is