Fair hearing and adequate opportunity must be provided before any disciplinary action is imposed under the provisions of the RTI Act.

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 31.01.2024, thereby directed the first respondent to take appropriate disciplinary proceedings as against the petitioner and also compensation of Rs.10,000/- payable to the second respondent for non-compliance of the order passed by the first respondent.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

3. The petitioner was working as Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax. He was also acting as the Public Information Officer under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “RTI Act”). While being so, the second respondent sought for information under the RTI Act, by an application dated 06.07.2022, about the names, addresses and registration numbers of the entities with GST registration certificate, engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of granite stones, granite slabs, M.Sand and fencing stone, whose registration were cancelled in the past five years. The said application was rejected by an order dated 28.07.2022, it was informed that 588 GST registrations were cancelled by the Department and 211 GST registrations were cancelled upon receipt of application in total 799 Nos.

4. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent filed an appeal before the first Appellate Authority and the same was dismissed. Once again, aggrieved by the same, the second respondent filed an appeal before the first respondent on 13.09.2022. After issuance of notice, the first respondent passed an order, by an order dated 14.08.2023, thereby directed the petitioner to furnish the information sought for by the second respondent, failing which, the petitioner will be imposed compensation of Rs.25,000/- as contemplated under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act. On receipt of the said order, by a letter dated 09.10.2023, it was provided that the entities with GST registration certificate engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of granite stones, granite slabs, M-sand and fencing stone, whose registration were cancelled in the past five years. Thereby, the petitioner had complied with the order passed by the first respondent. However, the second respondent once again filed an application before the first respondent alleging that the information sought for by the petitioner was not provided as directed by the first respondent. On receipt of the same, the first respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner dated 02.11.2023. On receipt of the same, by his letter dated 31.01.2024, the petitioner sought for time to submit his explanation due to administrative work. However, on the same day, the first respondent passed an order impugned in this writ petition, thereby directed the Disciplinary Authority to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as against the petitioner for non-compliance of the order passed by the first respondent and also directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-

within a period of thirty days in favour of the second respondent.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that originally the second respondent sought for information only in respect of the cancelled entities with GST registration certificate, engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of granite stones, granite slabs, M-sand and fencing stone. While rejecting the claim made by the second respondent, the petitioner enclosed the list of entities whose GST registration certificate were cancelled in total number of 799. It includes other entities who were engaged in other business.

6. Whereas, the second respondent sought for information only with regard to entities relating to granite industries. Therefore, as directed by the first respondent, the petitioner had given information with regard to the industries whose GST registration certificate was cancelled in respect of granite business alone. Therefore, the direction issued by the first respondent was duly complied with