Jharkhand High Court
Binit Kumar Son Of Late Rajeshwar Prasad ... vs The Jharkhand State Information ... on 10 February, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 3393 of 2016
---
Binit Kumar son of Late Rajeshwar Prasad Singh, at
present posted as Sub-Divisional Education Officer,
Deoghar, resident of T.K. Ghosh Campus, Barmasia,
Deoghar, P.O. & P.S.- Deoghar, District- Deoghar
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi
through its Secretary
2. The Secretary, Jharkhand State Information Commission,
Ranchi
3. The Authorised Officer, Jharkhand State Information
Commission, Ranchi
4. The State of Jharkhand
5. The Treasury Officer, Godda
6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Godda, Sadar,
Godda
7. Kamala Singh, the then District Superintendent of
Education, Godda-cum-District Programme Officer,
Jharkhand Education Project, Godda
8. Kamal Kishore Mandal son of Sri Jaikant Mandal resident of
Village Sabairjora, P.O.- Chindav, P.S.- Godda, District-
Godda .... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kumar Prasad, Advocate
For the Resp. Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate
For the Resp. Nos. 4 to 6 : Mr. Anshuman Kumar, A.C. to S.C.(L&C)-II
Order No. 09 Dated: 10.02.2025
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the
order dated 16.03.2016 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) passed
by the Chief Information Commissioner, Ranchi in Appeal No. 1270
of 2015 preferred by the respondent no. 8 which was
communicated to all concerned persons including the petitioner
vide memo no. 8212 dated 20.04.2016 issued under the signature
of Authorised Officer, Jharkhand State Information Commission,
Ranchi (the respondent no. 3), whereby a sum of Rs. 10,000/- has
been imposed upon the petitioner as penalty under Section 20(1)
of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short, "the Act, 2005") to
be recovered from his salary in two equal monthly instalments
w.e.f. April, 2016.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondent no. 8 sought certain information on 15.09.2014 from
the office of the District Education Officer, Godda and accordingly
the erstwhile District Education Officer-cum-Public Information
Officer, Godda, directed the erstwhile District Superintendent of
Education-cum-District Programme Officer, "Sarva Shiksha
Abhiyan", Godda to provide required information to the respondent
no. 8. However, the said information was not provided to the
respondent no. 8 and aggrieved with the same, he filed first
appeal before the Regional Deputy Director of Education-cum-First
Appellate Authority, Dumka. The required information not having
been furnished to the petitioner, he subsequently preferred appeal
before the Jharkhand Information Commission, Ranchi which was
registered as Appeal No. 1270 of 2015.
3. It is further submitted that the petitioner joined the post of
District Superintendent of Education, Godda on 02.07.2015 who,
vide letter no. 105 dated 12.03.2016, nominated the respondent
no. 6 as deemed Public Information Officer, Godda and the said
respondent, vide letter no. 294 dated 15.03.2016, informed the
respondent no. 1 with respect to providing the required
information to the respondent no. 8. Despite that, the Chief
Information Commissioner, vide impugned order dated 16.03.2016
imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- upon the petitioner without giving
him any opportunity of hearing.
4. It is also submitted that the Chief Information Commissioner
while passing the impugned order failed to appreciate that the
Jharkhand Education Project Council, Ranchi, vide letter no. 1351
dated 26.05.2010, had directed the District Superintendents of
Education-cum-District Programme Officers of all the districts to
nominate any one "Assistant Programme Officer" as "Public
Information Officer" and "Additional District Programme Officer" as
"First Appellate Authority" of the respective district.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent nos. 1 to 3 submits that the Chief Information
Commissioner has rightly passed the impugned order dated
16.03.2016 as the information sought by the respondent no. 8 was
provided to him after delay of nine months which was in violation
of the provisions of the Act, 2005.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
materials available on record.
7. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the petitioner cannot be held liable for any delay in providing
information to the respondent no. 8 since the application for
required information was filed by him on 15.09.2014 whereas the
petitioner joined the post of District Superintendent of Education,
Godda on 02.07.2015 i.e., after more than 9 months from the date
of filing of the said application. If any delay was committed in
providing the required information to the respondent no. 8, the
erstwhile Public Information Officer should only be held
responsible for the same.
8. It has further been contended that the petitioner having
come to know about the pendency of appeal, diligently appointed
the Block Education Extension Officer, Godda (respondent no. 6)
as deemed Public Information Officer, Godda who, vide letter no.
294 dated 15.03.2016, intimated the respondent no. 1 that the
required information was already provided to the respondent
no. 8.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has put 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 negligent 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 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. 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, one of the contentions of the petitioner
is that in view of the letter no. 1351 dated 26.05.2010 issued by
the Jharkhand Education Project Council, Ranchi, the District
Superintendent of Education was not the Public Information
Officer. It is however not clear from the record as to whether in
the light of letter no. 1351 dated 26.05.2010, any Assistant
Programme Officer of Godda district was nominated as Public
Information Officer of the said district. Even if it is assumed that
the District Superintendent of Education was the Public
Information Officer at the time of filing of the application under
the Act, 2005 by the respondent no. 8, it is undisputed fact that
the petitioner was not the Public Information Officer at the time of
filing of such application, rather he had joined as District
Superintendent of Education, Godda on 02.07.2015.
13. As such, none of the ingredients for imposing penalty upon
the petitioner under sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Act, 2005
has been fulfilled in the present case. Moreover, after taking
charge as the District Superintendent of Education, Godda-cum-
Public Information Officer, the petitioner promptly nominated the
respondent no. 6 as deemed Public Information Officer who, vide
letter no. 294 dated 15.03.2016, intimated the respondent no. 1
that the required information had already been provided to the
respondent no. 8.
14. If the delay was caused in furnishing information to the
respondent no. 8, the officer who was functioning as Public
Information Officer at the time of filing of the application under
Act, 2005 by the respondent no. 8, could have been held liable for
any 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
functioning as Public Information Officer who was actually
responsible for not providing the information in time as stipulated
under section 7(1) of the Act, 2005.
15. Otherwise also, the impugned order has been passed
without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner
which is in the teeth of the provisions of Section 20 of the Act,
2005 as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
rendered in the case of Manohar (supra). Under the said
circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Chief Information
Commissioner while passing the impugned order of imposing
penalty of Rs. 10,000/- upon the petitioner under Section 20(1)
has transgressed the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 20 of
the Act, 2005.
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order
dated 16.03.2016 passed by the Chief Information Commissioner,
Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi in Appeal No.
1270 of 2015 is quashed and set aside.
17. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Ritesh/A.F.R.
