Jharkhand High Court

Shrawan Kumar Son Of Late Rajendra ... vs The State Chief Information ... on 4 February, 2025

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   W.P.(C) No. 2694 of 2015
                             ---

Shrawan Kumar son of Late Rajendra Ravidas, resident of Giridih, P.O. & P.S.- Giridih, District- Giridih, presently posted as the Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Giridih ... ... Petitioner Versus

1. The State Chief Information Commissioner, Ranchi

2. Sanjeev (wrongly written as "Samir") Kumar Khandelwal, C/o- Makhan Lal Khandelwal, resident of Kutiya Road, Ward No. 24, P.S.- Giridih, District- Giridih .... ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Rama Kant Tiwari, Advocate For the Resp. No. 1 : Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate

Order No. 10 Dated: 04.02.2025

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing

the order dated 26.02.2015 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition)

passed by the Acting Chief Information Commissioner, Ranchi (the

respondent no. 1) in second appeal being Appeal no. 2860 of

2011 preferred by the respondent no. 2 which was communicated

to the petitioner vide memo no. 4559 dated 14.05.2015 issued

under the signature of Under Secretary, Jharkhand State

Information Commission, Ranchi, whereby penalty of Rs.25,000/-

has been imposed upon him under Section 20(1) of the Right

to Information Act, 2005 (in short, "the Act, 2005") to be

deducted from his salary in five equal monthly instalments

w.e.f. March, 2015.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Sanjeev

Kumar Khandelwal (the respondent no. 2) had sought

certain information from the Public Information Officer-cum- Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Giridih vide his application

dated 04.08.2011 which was not provided to him within statutory

period for which he preferred first appeal before the Deputy

Commissioner-cum-First Appellate Authority, Giridih vide his

application dated 10.09.2011. Thereafter, the required information

not having been furnished, the respondent no. 2 preferred second

appeal before the Chief Information Commissioner, Jharkhand

State Information Commission, Ranchi on 30.10.2011 which was

registered as Appeal No. 2860 of 2011. Subsequently, a notice

was issued to the then Public Information Officer-cum- Executive

Officer, Nagar Parishad, Giridih vide letter no. 2310 dated

10.03.2012.

3. It is further submitted that the petitioner had

taken charge of Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Giridih

on 12.07.2013 and he came to know about the pendency of the

second appeal before the respondent no. 1 for the first time on

20.11.2013 when the order dated 04.11.2013 as contained in

memo no. 9282 dated 13.11.2013 was communicated to him.

4. It is also submitted that though the required information

was already provided to the respondent no. 2 by the then Public

Information Officer-cum-Executive Officer, Giridih Nagar Parishad,

Giridih vide letter no. 343 dated 13.01.2012, however the

petitioner once again forwarded the said letter to the respondent

no.2 in the light of direction passed by the respondent no. 1 vide

order as contained in memo no. 7789 dated 11.09.2014 which

was communicated by the petitioner to the Under Secretary

In-charge, State Information Commission, vide letter no.

7703 dated 09.10.2014. The petitioner, vide letter no.292 dated

18.02.2015, once again provided the copy of entire information to

the respondent no.2 which was earlier provided to him vide letter

no. 343 dated 13.01.2012 and the same was intimated to

the Under Secretary, State Information Commission, Ranchi, vide

letter no. 296 dated 19.02.2015. Despite that, the respondent no.

1, vide impugned order dated 26.02.2015, imposed penalty of

Rs. 25,000/- upon the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the Act,

2005 directing that the same would be deducted from his salary in

five equal monthly instalments w.e.f. March, 2015 on account of

delay committed in providing information to the respondent no. 2.

It was also observed in the said order that the petitioner was

directed to file show cause reply regarding delay caused in

providing the required information to the respondent no. 2 which

was not submitted by him and his said act reflected that he was

not serious in compliance of the order passed by the respondent

no. 1.

5. The main contention of learned counsel for the

petitioner is that the petitioner had taken charge of Public

Information Officer only on 12.07.2013 and as such he cannot be

held liable for the penalty imposed under section 20(1) of the Act,

2005.

6. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the respondent no. 1 submits that the said respondent has rightly

imposed the aforesaid penalty upon the petitioner as in spite of

specific direction, he failed to provide complete information to the

respondent no. 2. Moreover, he did not file any reply to the show

cause notice issued to him for the delay committed in providing

information to the respondent no. 2.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

materials available on record.

8. The thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the

petitioner is that the petitioner cannot be held liable for any delay

caused in providing information to the respondent no. 2 as he had

taken charge as Public Information Officer on 12.07.2013. It has

further been contended that if any delay was committed in

providing the required information to the respondent no. 2, the

then Public Information Officer should only be held responsible for

the same.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner puts reliance on a

judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Tarni Prasad

Mukhia versus The Jharkhand State Information

Commission, through its Secretary and Others reported in

2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 1132 wherein the petitioner of the said

case had joined the post of Public Information Officer subsequent

to the filing of application under the Act, 2005. This Court while

quashing the order passed under section 20(1) and 20(2) of the

Act, 2005, has interpreted sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of

Section 20 of the Act, 2005 and has observed that Section 20 of

the Act, 2005 should be treated as a harsh provision and as such

before imposing penalty or recommending for initiation of

departmental proceeding, an opinion has to be formed by the

Commission that the Public Information Officer has not furnished

the information within the time specified without any reasonable

cause. It has further been held that there must be an objective

consideration by the Commission on the basis of the relevant

materials on which the conclusion about such action is drawn. In

the said case, this Court has also referred the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of

Manohar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Another reported in

(2012) 13 SCC 14 wherein it has been held that the State

Information Commission has been vested with wide powers

including imposition of penalty or taking of disciplinary action

against the employees. Exercise of such power is bound to

adversely affect or bring civil consequences to the delinquent and

thus, the provisions relating to penalty or to penal consequences

have to be construed strictly. It is not open to the Court to give

them such liberal construction which would be beyond the specific

language of the statute or would be in violation of the principles of

natural justice. This Court has also referred the case of Chief

Information Commissioner & Another Vs. State of Manipur

& Another reported in (2011) 15 SCC 1, in which the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held that before passing the order of penalty

under Section 20 of the Act, 2005, the Commissioner must satisfy

himself that the conduct of the Information Officer was not

bonafide.

10. I have also gone through the provisions of Section 20 of

the Act, 2005 which read as under: -

"20. Penalties.-(1) Where the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under subsection (1) of Section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees:

Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:

Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.

(2) Where the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the

service rules applicable to him."

11. Thus, there are four conditions under which the Central

Information Commission or the State Information Commission

may impose penalty and recommend to initiate departmental

proceeding against the Central Public Information Officer or the

State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, if the said

officer has: -

(i) refused to receive an application for information or

(ii) not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section(1) of Section 7 of the Act, 2005 or

(iii) malafidely denied the request for information or

(iv) knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information.

12. In the present case, the petitioner was not the Public

Information Officer at the time of filing of application by the

respondent no. 2 under the Act, 2005, rather he had joined as a

Public Information Officer on 12.07.2013 during pendency of the

appeal before the respondent no. 1 and as such none of the

ingredients for imposing penalty against the petitioner under sub-

section (1) of Section 20 of the Act, 2005 has been fulfilled in the

present case. If the delay was caused in not furnishing

information to the respondent no. 2, the officer, who was

functioning as Public Information Officer at the time of filing of

the application under the Act, 2005 by the respondent no. 2, could

have been held liable for any penalty under sub-section (1) of