Jharkhand High Court
George Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 5 February, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 2952 of 2016
George Kumar, S/o Sri James Kumar, the then PIO-cum-Addl.
Collector, Palamau, At Present posted as State Protocol Officer,
Cabinet Secretariat & Co-ordinating Department, Government of
Jharkhand, R/o Flat No. 107, Sarvamangla Apartment, P.N. Bose
Compound, PO & PS-Lalpur, District-Ranchi ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary,
Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and
Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Jharkhand State Information Commission, Engineering
Hostel No. 2, HEC Campus, Near Sector-III, Golchakkar, Dhurwa,
Ranchi through the Chief Information Commissioner
3. The Under Secretary, Jharkhand State Information Commission,
Engineering Hostel No. 2, HEC Campus, Near Sector-III,
Golchakkar, Dhurwa, Ranchi
4. The Nodal Officer, Public Information Cell-cum-Addl. Collector,
Palamu, PO & PS-Medininagar, District-Palamu
5. Rajnikant Pandey, Retired Mining Engineer, R/o Village & PO-
Bhandara, Vishrampur, Palamu ... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent-State : Mr. Ashwini Bhushan,
AC to Sr. SC-II
For the Respondent-JSIC : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate
-----
14/05.02.2025 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing
the order dated 08.09.2014 as contained in memo no. 10478
dated 22.12.2014 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) issued under
the signature of the respondent no. 3 - the Under Secretary,
Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi in Appeal Case
No. 108 of 2011, whereby a sum of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed
as penalty against the petitioner under the provision of Section
20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to
as "the Act, 2005") and the same has been directed to be realized
from his monthly salary @ Rs.5000/- per month with further
direction to the department of the petitioner to pay a sum of
Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the respondent no. 5 under the
provision of Section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005 for not furnishing the
information to him under the said Act. Further prayer has been
made for quashing the letter as contained in memo no. 76/Ra.
dated 16.04.2015 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition), whereby the
respondent No. 4 has asked the petitioner to pay the aforesaid
compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the respondent no. 5 out of his
own earned resources.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was posted as Addl. Collector, Palamu-cum-Public
Information Officer from 15.01.2014 to 01.09.2014 and during the
said period, he received memo no. 2042 dated 06.03.2014 and
memo no. 5400 dated 02.07.2014 issued under the signature of the
In-charge Under Secretary, Jharkhand State Information
Commission, Ranchi, wherefrom he came to know that one
Rajnikant Pandey (the respondent no. 5) had filed an application
under the Act, 2005 vide his application dated 13.09.2010 for
obtaining certain information from the then Public Information
Officer-cum-Addl. Collector, Palamu and an appeal filed by him
being Appeal No. 108 of 2011 before the State Information
Commission was pending for the information related to Sl. No. 3 of
the application of the respondent no. 5.
3. It is further submitted that the petitioner having come
to know about the pendency of the said appeal, immediately took
all efforts to procure the same as the relevant files were missing.
The petitioner appeared before the State Information Commission
on 18.07.2014 and on the said date, the Information Commissioner,
Ranchi granted two weeks' time to the petitioner to disseminate
Information to the appellant/respondent no. 5 through speed
post/registered post and also directed the petitioner to file his reply
to the show-cause notice fixing the next date of hearing on
08.09.2014.
4. It is further submitted that since the file from which
the desired information was to be supplied was missing, the
petitioner issued letters to the custodian of records and after
receiving his reply dated 24.07.2014, he filed 'Sanha' before the
concerned Police Station vide his letter no. 663/Ra., dated
24.07.2014 in order to obtain order of the Deputy Commissioner,
Palamu to open a duplicate one. The petitioner also filed an
application before the In-charge Under Secretary, Jharkhand State
information Commission vide letter no. 126/Ra. dated 26.07.2014
for grant of some more time to file reply to the show-cause notice
as he was to attend some training programme of the
Election Commission of India at New Delhi.
5. In the meantime, the petitioner was transferred from
the post of Additional Collector-cum-Public Information Officer,
Palamu to Ranchi as State Protocol Officer, Cabinet Secretariat &
Coordinating Department, Government of Jharkhand and
accordingly, he handed over his charges to his successor officer on
01.09.2014, however, before handing over the charge, he provided
desired information to the respondent no. 5 vide letter no. 784
dated 01.09.2014 which was also acknowledged by the
appellant/respondent no. 5 on 08.09.2014. However, the successor
officer of the petitioner did not attend the subsequent date of
Appeal No. 108 of 2011 as a result of which the respondent no. 3
passed the impugned order dated 08.09.2014 in Appeal No. 108 of
2011, imposing a sum of Rs.25,000/- as penalty upon the petitioner
under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005 which was to be realized from
his monthly salary @ Rs.5000/- per month with further direction to
the department of the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as the
amount of compensation to the respondent no. 5 under the
provision of Section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005, for not furnishing the
information to him under the said Act.
6. It is also submitted that the impugned order was
passed assuming the fact that information had not been furnished
to the respondent no. 5 which was factually incorrect. The
petitioner having come to know about the impugned order, filed his
explanation before the Jharkhand State Information Commission,
but was no considered. In fact, the appeal was pending since 2011
and the petitioner was not the Public Information Officer at the
time of filing of the application by the respondent no. 5 under the
Act, 2005 and as such, if at all there was any statutory delay, it
could be attributed to his predecessor-in-office.
7. Moreover, the respondent no. 3 has acted beyond
his power and jurisdiction in imposing a penalty of Rs.25,000/-
upon the petitioner with further direction to his department to pay
compensation of Rs.30,000/- despite the fact that the desired
information which was required by the appellant/respondent no. 5
had already been received by him and he also did not appear
before the respondent no. 3 to claim that the desired Information
had not been furnished to him.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-
Jharkhand State Information Commission submits that the
Information Commissioner has rightly passed the impugned order
since in spite of specific direction to the petitioner, he had neither
provided the information to the respondent no. 5 nor had appeared
before the Information Commissioner on the date fixed for hearing.
The appeal of the respondent no. 5 was pending since 2011,
however, the petitioner had failed to provide the required
information to him which was in violation of the provisions of the
Act, 2005 and as such, the Information Commissioner has
committed no wrong in imposing penalty under Section 20(1) of the
Act, 2005 and compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the said Act.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
materials available on record.
10. The thrust of argument of learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the petitioner cannot be held liable for any delay
in providing information to the respondent no. 5 since the appeal of
the respondent no. 5 was pending since 2011 and he had taken
charge as Public Information Officer on 15.01.2014. If any delay
was caused in providing the required information to the respondent
no. 5, the then Public Information Officer should only be held liable
for it.
11. It is further contended that the petitioner having come
to know about the pendency of appeal before the Commission, he
diligently took all steps to provide information to the respondent no.
5 and the same was provided to him vide letter no. 784 dated
01.09.2014.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has put reliance on
the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of "Tarni Prasad
Mukhia Vs. Jharkhand State Information Commission,
through its Secretary & Ors." reported in 2023 SCC OnLine
Jhar 1132, wherein the petitioner of the said case had joined the
post of Public Information Officer subsequent to 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 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 had also referred the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Manohar
Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr." 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 up 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 such liberal construction which would
be beyond the specific language of the statute or would be in
violation of the principles of natural justice. Moreover, in the case of
"Chief Information Commissioner & Anr. Vs. State of
Manipur & Anr." reported in (2011) 15 SCC 1, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has further 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
bona fide.
13. I have gone through the provisions of Section 20 of the
Act, 2005, which reads 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 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 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."
14. Thus, there are four conditions under which the Central
Information Commission or State Information Commission may
impose penalty and recommend initiation of departmental
proceeding against the Central Public Information Officer or the
State Public Information Officer if the said officer has:
(i) refused to receive an application for information.
(ii) not furnished information within the time specified
under sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act, 2005.
(iii) malafidely denied the request for information.
(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.
15. In the present case, the petitioner was not the Public
Information Officer at the time of filing of the application by the
respondent no. 5 under the Act, 2005, rather he had joined as
Deputy Collector-cum-Public Information Officer, Palamu on
15.01.2014 during the pendency of second appeal before the State
Information Commission and as such, none of the ingredients for
imposing penalty against the petitioner under sub-section (1) of
Section 20 of the Act, 2005 is fulfilled in the present case.
Moreover, after taking charge as Public Information Officer, the
petitioner had supplied the required information to the respondent
no. 5 vide letter no. 784 dated 01.09.2014, which was
acknowledged by the respondent no. 5 on 08.09.2014, however, he
could not file reply to the show-cause notice before the Information
Commissioner at the time of hearing of appeal since he was already
transferred from the post of Additional Collector, Palamu to Ranchi
as State Protocol Officer, Cabinet Secretariat & Coordination
Department, Government of Jharkhand. If the delay was
occasioned in furnishing information to the respondent no. 5, the
officer who was functioning as Public Information Officer at the
time of making of application under the Act, 2005 by the
respondent no. 5, could have been held liable for penalty under
sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act, 2005. The liability under
sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 20 of the Act, 2005 cannot be
fastened on the person holding the post of Public Information
Officer at the time of passing of the order by the Commission,
rather the same can only be fastened on the person who was
functioning as Public Information Officer and was actually
responsible for not providing the information in time as stipulated
under Section 7(1) of the Act, 2005.
16. Under the said circumstance, this Court is of the view
that the respondent no. 3 while passing the impugned order
imposing penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner under Section
20(1) has transgressed the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section
20 of the Act, 2005.
17. So far as the order for payment of compensation of
Rs.30,000/- to the respondent no. 5 by the department of the
petitioner under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005 is concerned, the
department of the petitioner has not come up before this Court
challenging the said order, rather the petitioner has challenged the
subsequent order as contained in letter bearing memo no. 76/Ra.
dated 16.04.2015 issued by the respondent no. 4, whereby he has
been directed to pay the amount of compensation stating that the
same was imposed upon him.
18. I have perused the judgment of learned Division Bench
of this Court rendered in the case of "Harishankar Barik Vs.
Information Commissioner & Ors." (L.P.A No. 74 of 2019),
wherein it has been held that Section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005
confers power upon the State Information Commission to pass an
order upon the Public Authority to compensate the complainant for
any loss or any other detriment suffered and thus, the amount of
compensation can be paid only in a case where the complainant
has been able to prove before the State Information Commission
regarding sustaining any loss or other detriment.
19. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
"Public Information Officer, Ranchi University Vs. The
Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information
Commission & Anr." reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Jhar 5324
also quashed the order of compensation observing that the
Information Commissioner had awarded compensation of
Rs.2,00,000/- without recording a finding on the issue of mental
torture, agony and harassment to the complainant as well as that
the complainant had not sought award of compensation for the
delay in providing information and harassment caused to him by
filing any application with a computation chart on that aspect.
20. This Court also in the case of "Sido Kanhu Murmu
University, Dumka Vs. The State of Jharkhand through the
Chief Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State
Information Commissioner, Ranchi & Ors." reported in 2023
SCC OnLine Jhar 2451 has quashed the order for payment of
compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005 observing
that there was no finding of the Information Commissioner on the
issue that as a result of not providing information to the
complainants, they suffered any loss or other detriment which is a
condition precedent for awarding compensation under Section
19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005. It has further been observed that the
Information Commissioner while imposing compensation against
the said petitioner (the public authority) under Section 19(8)(b) of
the Act, 2005 had also not given any finding with respect to the
manner in which the respondent no. 3 had suffered loss or other
detriment.
21. In the present case also, the Information Commissioner
while awarding the compensation to the respondent no. 5 has not
given any finding to the effect that by not providing the
information, the respondent no. 5 has suffered any loss or other
detriment, rather he has merely observed that the respondent no. 5
has suffered difficulty due to not providing information to him.
22. I am of the view that the difficulty cannot be a ground
to award compensation to the applicant under the Act, 2005. That
apart, the compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005 is
required to be paid by the public authority being the custodian of
record when the information is not provided to the applicant due to
inaction on its part, however, in the present case, vide impugned
order dated 08.09.2014, the department of the petitioner has been
held liable for compensation without any finding to that effect.
Thus, the order for payment of compensation by the department of
the petitioner to the respondent no. 5 is not legally sustainable.
Moreover, subsequently also vide letter dated 16.04.2015 issued by
the respondent no. 4, the petitioner has been held liable to pay
compensation who was not the public authority as defined under
Section 2(h) of the Act, 2005, rather he was the Public Information
Officer and thus the order as contained in the said letter dated
16.04.2015 whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay
compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005, is also liable
to be set-aside.
23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned
order dated 08.09.2014 as contained in memo no. 10478 dated
22.12.2014 issued under the signature of the respondent no. 3 -
the Under Secretary, Jharkhand State Information Commission,
Ranchi in Appeal Case No. 108 of 2011 is quashed and set-aside.
The letter as contained in memo no. 76 dated 16.04.2015 issued by
the respondent no. 4 - the Nodal Officer, Public Information Cell-
cum-Addl. Collector, Palamu being consequential in nature is also
set-aside.
24. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
25. I.A. No. 671 of 2020 filed on behalf of the respondent
no. 5 seeking payment of compensation in view of the impugned
order dated 08.09.2014 is also dismissed accordingly.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Manish/AFR
