Chattisgarh High Court
Sanjay Kumar Pandey vs Chhattisgarh State Information ... on 31 October, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 454 of 2022
Sanjay Kumar Pandey s/o Late Shri Ved Pandey, aged about 52 years,
R/o Kamla Kunj, Kasturba Nagar, Sindhi Colony, PS Civil Lines,
Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, through Chief
Information Commissioner, Sector-19, North Block, Atal Nagar,
Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. District Education Officer-cum-First Appellate Authority (RTI)
Bemetara, District Bemegara, Chhattisgarh.
3. At-Present Public Information Officer (G.R.Chaturvedi) Posted at
Government Higher Middle School, Jhal, Block Navagarh, District
Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
4. Public Information Officer, Government Boys Higher Middle School
Navagarh, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
(Cause Title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 1 & 3 : None
For Respondent No.2 & 4 : Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Deputy G.A.
Hon'ble Mr. Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
31/10/2022
Heard Mr. Krishna Tandon, learned counsel, appearing for the
appellant. Also heard Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned Deputy Government
Advocate, appearing for the respondent No. 2 and 4.
2. This appeal is presented against an order dated 04.07.2022 passed
by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 2892/2022, whereby the writ
petition was disposed of as follows :
"1. The instant writ petition has been filed against the
order dated 26.02.2020 passed by respondent no.1
Chhattisgarh State Information Commission.
2. Perusal of document dated 25.11.2016 and
considering the nature of information sought it reflects
that petitioner primarily wanted the documents pertaining
to the appointment of Enquiry Officer and proceedings of
the enquiry and enquiry report, if any. Down the line the
petitioner has been informed that no such enquiry as
such has been conducted against the petitioner. Under
the circumstances, no documents could be made
available to the petitioner.
3. Petitioner now seems to be aggrieved of only the
delay which has caused in making these information
available to the petitioner.
4. This Court on due consideration of the orders passed
by the Authorities concerned does not find any strong
case made out by the petitioner for issuance of any
direction at this juncture primarily for the reason that
respondents themselves have come out with a stand that
no such enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. If
that be so, the petitioner should be satisfied with the
same. Merely because, the information was provided at
a belated stage by itself should not be agitated, to this
extent, the writ petition stands disposed off."
3. The appellant is the Principal of Government Boys Higher Secondary
School, Nawagarh, District Bemetara.
4. It is stated in the appeal that the appellant, on coming to know that a
complaint was filed against him, had filed an application dated 25.11.2016
under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking information on three
points, namely, (i) copy of appointment of the Inquiry Officer by the order of
the Collector and the copy of information given to the appellant, (ii) copy of
complaint and copy of charge-sheet submitted against the appellant, and
(iii) copy of documents collected during enquiry against the appellant and
enquiry report.
5. The writ petition was filed praying for a direction to the respondent
No. 3 to provide the information as sought for by the appellant and also to
impose penalty at the rate of Rs. 250/- per day as well as for initiation of
disciplinary proceedings against Mr. G.R.Chaturvedi. It was also prayed
that the appellant be granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- for
the mental and physical harassment undergone by him.
6. On query of the Court, Mr. Tandon submits that no disciplinary
proceedings has been initiated against the appellant till date.
7. It is seen from the materials on record that the appellant had received
copy of the complaint on 01.03.2018.
8. Having regard to the nature of relief sought for, Mr. G.R. Chaturvedi,
ought to have been made a party by name in the proceedings and not by
way of designation as reflected in the cause-title.
9. That apart, in the attending facts and circumstances of the case, we
see no good ground to take a view other than the view taken by the
learned Single Judge and accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Sanjay Agrawal)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Amit
