Back
Tahsildars Not Posted During RTI Response Period Cannot Be Penalised:
The has quashed a ₹25,000 penalty imposed under the on two Tahsildars who were not posted at the concerned Tahsil when the RTI application and were filed. The judgment reinforces the cardinal principle that a ) cannot be held liable for delays occurring before their tenure. The court also found that the State Information Commission ignored the petitioners’ replies and failed to consider the vague nature of the RTI application.
Background: The RTI Application and the Penalty
The matter originated from an RTI application filed by one Govind Patel on , before the then Tahsildar-cum-Public Information Officer at Dhamdha. Patel sought information regarding the condition of ponds and encroachments within the . When the information was not supplied within the , he filed a and eventually approached the .
The Commission, by its order dated , imposed a penalty of ₹25,000 on the petitioners — Smt. Hemlata Dahariya and another Tahsildar — under . Additionally, it directed the initiation of against them. The Commission found that the petitioners had failed to provide the requested information and also observed that they had not submitted their replies to the .
The Challenge: Not Posted at the Relevant Time
Aggrieved by the Commission’s order, the petitioners filed a before the . Their primary contention was that they could not be held responsible for non-supply of information during a period when they were not posted as Public Information Officers at Dhamdha. They pointed out that the RTI application was filed while they were posted elsewhere, and they had no opportunity to comply with the request.
Furthermore, the petitioners argued that the RTI application itself was vague and lacked the necessary particulars to clearly identify the precise information sought. They also asserted that they had, in fact, filed their replies before the Commission, contrary to the finding in the impugned order. The respondents — the State Information Commission and others — initially supported the Commission’s order but fairly conceded that the petitioners had indeed submitted their replies, which had subsequently been traced in another file.
Court’s Reasoning: No Liability Without Responsibility
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, presiding over the single bench, examined the record and found that the petitioners had duly submitted their replies. The Commission’s finding that no reply was received was not borne out by the material on record. More critically, the court accepted the core argument of the petitioners.
“The petitioners were not posted at the relevant point of time when the application seeking information was filed under RTI, as such no liability can be fastened upon the petitioners,” the court observed. The judgment underscores that the RTI Act fastens liability on the who is actually in office when the application is received and when the statutory timeline for response runs. Imposing a penalty on an officer who had no connection with the application at the relevant time would be contrary to the .
The court also noted that the information sought by Patel was vague and did not contain sufficient particulars to enable the to identify and provide the requested data. The Commission had not considered this aspect while imposing the penalty. Consequently, the High Court allowed the and quashed the order of the State Information Commission, but only insofar as it imposed the ₹25,000 penalty on the petitioners.
Legal Implications: Liability Under the RTI Act
The judgment provides clarity on the scope of liability under . The provision allows an Information Commission to impose a penalty on a who, , refuses to receive an application, fails to furnish information within the specified time, or provides false, incomplete, or misleading information. However, the liability attaches to the officer who was responsible at the time the duty arose.
This decision serves as a crucial check against automatic imposition of penalties without examining the factual context of the officer’s posting. It reinforces that accountability must be aligned with actual responsibility. In cases where PIOs are transferred or changed midstream, it is the officer who holds the office during the response period who bears the duty — not a predecessor who has no control over the pending papers.
The court’s observation regarding the vagueness of the RTI application also carries weight. Applicants are expected to frame their queries with reasonable clarity. If the request is too vague for a to act upon, the Commission should consider that as a factor before imposing a penalty.
Impact on RTI Practice and Administration
For legal practitioners representing public authorities or PIOs, this case is a useful precedent. It can be cited to resist penalty proceedings where the officer was not in charge during the relevant period. It also highlights the importance of maintaining accurate records of officer postings and the handover of pending RTI applications. Government departments must ensure that when a is transferred, all pending applications are formally handed over to the successor, who then assumes responsibility.
Information Commissions, too, are reminded to verify the timeline of postings before issuing show-cause notices or imposing penalties. A mechanical approach to penalties can lead to unnecessary writ petitions and wastage of judicial resources. The judgment also calls for a more careful examination of the content of RTI applications — a vague request should not be grounds for penalizing an officer.
Conclusion
The ’s decision in is a welcome affirmation of procedural fairness in RTI adjudication. By quashing the penalty on officers who were not posted during the response period, the court has protected them from being scapegoats for administrative gaps. The judgment underscores that liability must follow responsibility, and that the RTI Act, while a powerful tool for transparency, must be applied with due regard to factual circumstances.
For the legal community, this case is a reminder that the defence of “not being the officer in charge at the material time” is both legally sound and practically relevant. It also encourages better record-keeping and smoother transitions of official duties — improvements that ultimately serve the goal of timely and accurate information disclosure under the RTI framework.
