Allahabad High Court
Gopal Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 25 March, 2014
Bench: Abhinava Upadhya
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 59
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17120 of 2014
Petitioner :- Gopal Kumar Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishan Ji Khare,Mritunjay Khare
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J.
The petitioner is currently holding the post of Village Development Officer and is posted at Block Mardah, District Ghazipur.The petitioner reports to the Block Development Officer. In 2009 certain information was sought by Moti Ram and Parash Nath Singh, who are the BPL Cardholders with regard to the functioning of Panchayat and certain contracts being given to certain companies and photo copies of various documents were required. The application was moved before the Block Development Officer, who is a Public Information Officer under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Block Development Officer forwarded a letter to the petitioner for supplying the information. The petitioner after identifying the documents needed to be supplied wrote a letter dated 4th December, 2009 to Moti Ram and Paras Nath Singh that an amount of Rs. 8210/- be deposited in the Village Fund which is the cost of photo copies of each documents.
It is submitted that the said money was never deposited. Accordingly no information was sent.
It appears that on account of information not being supplied, an appeal was filed before the Commissioner, who passed an order fixing liability on the Public Information Officer, i.e., the Block Development Officer for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as information on two applications were sought. Therefore, Rs. 25,000/- each total amount of Rs. 50,000/- was the liability fixed on the Block Development Officer by order dated 21.12.2011. Pursuant to the said order of the Commissioner the Block Development Officer by the order impugned have fixed the liability upon the petitioner by order dated 20.1.2014 for deduction from his salary and stoppage of salary of the petitioner holding the petitioner responsible for not supplying the information.
It is submitted that before the Commissioner where the appeal was filed, the petitioner was not given any opportunity to defend himself. The liability was fixed on the Block Development Officer, who in turn had saddled the liability upon the petitioner.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, such a liability cannot be fixed upon the petitioner as he has acted in good faith and never resisted to supply the information sought but since the applicants did not deposit the cost of photo copying of the documents sought by them, information could not be supplied.
The matter requires consideration.
Let a counter affidavit be filed by the learned Standing Counsel within one month. One week thereafter is allowed to the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit.
List after the expiry of the aforesaid period.
Till the next date of listing, the operation of the impugned order dated 20.1.2014 shall remain stayed.
Order Date :- 25.3.2014
SKM
