Dilip Kumar Toppo vs Jharkhand State Information Commission And Ors

Heard Ms. Kumari Sugandha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjoy Piprawal, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent nos.1 to 3.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 11.06.2013 passed in Appeal No.1461 of 2012 by the learned Chief

Information Commissioner, Ranchi whereby a penalty of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was discharging his duties as Deputy Secretary, Registration

Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi and was transferred as Deputy Secretary, Agriculture and Sugarcane Development Department,

Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi vide order dated 07.12.2012 and started discharging his duties at the newly assigned post. The learned counsel for

the petitioner further submits that the petitioner joined on the said post on 04.01.2013. The joining memo has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ

petition. Subsequently, the petitioner was assigned with the duty of Public Information Officer under the Right to Information Act, 2005 vide order

dated 12.04.2013. The said order is annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. She submits that respondent no.4 has sought certain information vide

his application dated 06.02.2012 under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The said information was provided to the respondent no.4 on 30.11.2012 by

the predecessor of the petitioner. She further submits that after receiving the notice the petitioner appeared before the Information Commission and

vide Annexure-7 requested to dispense him as the information has already been provided to the respondent no.4. She further submits that at the time

of information sought for on behalf of the respondent no.4, the petitioner was not the Information Officer and he joined later on and that is why the

order against the petitioner is very harsh. She further submits that although on certain delay the information has already been provided.

The respondent no.4 was noticed and his reply has been received by registered post where he has stated that the order has been passed by

Jharkhand State Information Commission and he has got nothing to say.

Mr. Sanjoy Piprawal, the learned counsel appearing for the Information Commission submits that in view of sub-section 1 of section 20 the

Information Commission has rightly passed the order. He further submits that this ground was not taken by the petitioner before the Commission

however the petitioner has joined later on and that is why the order in question has been passed.

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, this Court finds that the petitioner has joined on 04.12.2013 in the Agriculture and

Sugarcane Development Department and subsequently he was assigned with the duty of Public Information Officer under the Right to Information

Act, 2005. This Court further finds that the information with regard to respondent no.4 has already been provided on 30.11.2012 and the respondent

no.4 is not coming forward to say anything and considering the fact that the petitioner has joined later on and the information has already been

provided and this aspect has not been considered by the State Information Commission, it appears that the order is very harsh against the petitioner

and accordingly, the order dated 11.06.2013 contained in Annexure-8 is set-aside.

The matter is remitted back to the State Information Commission to provide an opportunity to the petitioner and pass a fresh order in accordance

with law.

With the above observation and direction, the instant petition being W.P.(C) No.300 of 2014 stands allowed and disposed of.