Dr. D.N. Suryavanshi vs State Information Commission And Ors

Prashant Kumar Mishra, J

Challenge thrown in this petition is to the order passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission (henceforth 'the Commission') imposing

penalty of Rs.30,000/-on the petitioner.

Admittedly, before imposing penalty on the petitioner, the Commission has not issued any show cause notice to him, which the Commission was

bound to do in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Manohar S/o Manikrao Anchule v State of Maharashtra and Another

(2012) 13 SCC 14 wherein the following has been held in paras 17, 22 & 23 :

The State Information Commission is performing adjudicatory functions where two parties raise their respective issues to which the State

Information Commission is expected to apply its mind and pass an order directing disclosure of the information asked for or declining the same. Either

way, it affects the rights of the parties who have raised rival contentions before the Commission. If there were no rival contentions, the matter would

rest at the level of the designated Public Information Officer or immediately thereafter. It comes to the State Information Commission only at the

appellate stage when rights and contentions require adjudication. The adjudicatory process essentially has to be in consonance with the principles of

natural justice, including the doctrine of audi alteram partem. Hearing the parties, application of mind and recording of reasoned decision are the basic

elements of natural justice. It is not expected of the Commission to breach any of these principles, particularly when its orders are open to judicial

review. Much less to Tribunals or such Commissions, the Courts have even made compliance with the principle of rule of natural justice obligatory in

the class of administrative matters as well.

xxx xxx xxx

We may notice that proviso to Section 20 (1) specifically contemplates that before imposing the penalty contemplated under Section 20 (1), the

Commission shall give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the concerned officer. However, there is no such specific provision in relation to the

matters covered under Section 20 (2). Section 20 (2) empowers the Central or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of

deciding a complaint or appeal for the reasons stated in that section, to recommend for disciplinary action to be taken against the Central Public

Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the relevant service rules. Power to recommend disciplinary

action is a power exercise of which may impose penal consequences. When such a recommendation is received, the disciplinary authority would

conduct  the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law and subject to satisfaction of the requirements of law. It is a 'recommendation' and not

a 'mandate' to conduct an enquiry. 'Recommendation' must be seen in contradistinction to 'direction' or 'mandate'. But recommendation itself vests the

delinquent Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer with consequences which are of serious nature and can ultimately produce

prejudicial results including misconduct within the relevant service rules and invite minor and/or major penalty.

Thus, the principles of natural justice have to be read into the provisions of Section 20 (2). It is a settled canon of civil jurisprudence including

service jurisprudence that no person be condemned unheard. Directing disciplinary action is an order in the form of recommendation which has far

reaching civil consequences. It will not be permissible to take the view that compliance with principles of natural justice is not a condition precedent to

passing of a recommendation under Section 20 (2).

In view of the settled legal position, the impugned order passed by the Commission is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the

Commission for passing fresh order on the issue after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all other parties.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicate above. No order as to cost(s).