Arjun Pratap Singh. Vs Chief Information Commissioner and others.

Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 16.01.2008 passed by respondent no. 1 / Chief Information Commissioner.

Undisputedly, respondent no. 2 sought certain information under the Right to Information Act on 04.01.2007 from petitioner, who was Public Information Officer at the relevant time. Petitioner supplied the information with delay on 23.02.2007 without mentioning therein name and address of the First Appellate Authority. Respondent no. 2 not being satisfied with the information supplied by petitioner filed appeal before First Appellate Authority on 30.03.2007. First Appellate Authority had kept the matter pending, therefore, petitioner approached State Information Commission and Chief Information Commissioner passed the impugned order directing the Department to record adverse entry in the service record of the petitioner.

Section 20 of the Right to Information Act reads as under:

"20. Penalties :(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the 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 the 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.

No doubt petitioner had not supplied the required information to the respondent no. 2 within stipulated time and Appellate Authority had not decided the appeal. But from the perusal of Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2015 it is clear that respondent no. 1 has no authority to direct the Department to record adverse entry in the service record of the petitioner, he can only recommend for disciplinary action against the petitioner.

In view of the above, petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Impugned order dated 16.01.2008 passed by respondent no. 1 is hereby quashed.