208 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-35067-2024 Date of Decision :14.05.2026 KARUNA .....Petitioner VERSUS THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present : Mr. Sube S. Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Bhupender Singh, Addl.AG, Haryana.

KULDEEP TIWARI , J.(Oral)

1. The State Information Commission, Haryana (respondent No. 1), while disposing of Show Cause Notice No. 1981 of 2024 issued to the present petitioner (State Public Information Officer), imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- for non-furnishing of complete information sought by respondent No. 3 (the applicant) under the RTI Act, 2005, vide impugned order dated 29.08.2024 (Annexure P-14). Aggrieved thereby, the instant writ petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that respondent no.3 was an Associate Professor in Maharaja Agrasen College, Jagadhari, where the petitioner was functioning as the SPIO under the RTI Act. A dispute had arisen between respondent No. 3 and the College with regard to the benefit of the suspension period and grant of two annual increments, and in order to settle scores, respondent no. 3 had been filing multiple RTI applications. It is further submitted that each RTI application was duly replied to, and point-wise information was furnished. In the present case as well, all the information sought by respondent No. 3 was duly supplied.

3. He next submits that although the learned State Information Commission, vide the impugned order, recorded that complete information had not been furnished by the petitioner-SPIO, however, there is no specific disclosure in the order as to which particular information had not been supplied.

4. He finally submits that the dispute with respondent no. 3 now stands settled, and respondent no.3 has furnished an undertaking before the President, Governing Body, Maharaja Agrasen Mahavidyalaya, stating that he would withdraw all RTI applications, as well as, the case pending before the District Court, Jagadhari, pertaining to the dispute regarding the PF account.

5. This Court, vide order dated 09.09.2025, directed the petitioner to file a specific affidavit, disclosing therein, whether, the complete information sought by respondent no.3 through application (Annexure P-1) had been supplied to her or not. In compliance with the said direction, a specific affidavit dated 04.12.2025 has been filed, wherein, the petitioner has stated that all the information sought by respondent No. 3 had been furnished to her. The relevant is extracted hereinafter:-

“2. That it is submitted that the respondent No.3 had filed an RTI application dated 06.07.2023 (Annexure P-1) containing 22 points and multiple sub-points. The information was supplied by the then SPIO cum Principal in written reply dated 04.08.2023 (Annexure P-2).

3. That thereafter, the respondent No.3 preferred a First Appeal and subsequently a Second Appeal before the State Information Commission. During the pendency of the Second Appeal, the Hon'ble Commission, vide order dated 18.04.2024 (Annexure P- 6), directed the petitioner to revisit the RTI application and furnish pointwise permissible information.

4. That in strict compliance with the aforesaid order, the deponent revisited the entire RTI application and submitted a fresh written reply dated 16.05.2024 (Annexure P-7), specifically stating that all information available in the records had already been supplied and nothing had been withheld.

5. That further, vide letter dated 17.05.2024 along with enclosed correspondence (Annexure P-8), the deponent again clarified to respondent No.3 the status of information available in the office record and reiterated that the information had been duly supplied. 6. That despite complete compliance, a show cause notice dated 30.05.2024 (Annexure P-9) was issued by the Commission, whereupon the petitioner sub