Kailash Chandra Shakya vs State of Uttarakhand & others

Alok Singh, J.

1) By means of present writ petition, petitioner seeks following prayers, among others:

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 26.08.2015 passed by the Commissioner, State Information

Commission in Appeal No.A(CT)17015/2014 Bhuwan Chandra Pandey vs. Public Information Officer and others (contained in Annexure no.19 to the

writ petition).

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents no.1, 2 & 3 not to recover the penalty of

Rs.25,000/- from the salary of the petitioner.â€​

2) Brief facts of the case are that on 26.09.2014 respondent no.4-Bhuwan Chandra Pandey filed an application under the Right to Information Act

seeking information about his service record. On 07.10.2014, the Chief Education Officer wrote a letter to the Principal, G.I.C., Amodi, District

Champawat that since Bhuwan Chandra Pandey has sought information regarding his service record, hence, his service record be provided, so that

the desired information would be given to him. On 15.10.2014, the Principal, GIC, Amodi, District Champawat informed the Chief Education Officer,

Champawat that the service record of respondent no.4 was sent to the Finance Officer, Champawat on 06.05.2009 for the purpose of computing

pension etc., therefore, his service record is not available in the office of GIC Amodi. On this premise, vide letter dated 21.10.2014, the Public

Information Officer provided the information to respondent no.4 that the service record in question was not available in the office of GIC, Amodi.

3) Being aggrieved by the information provided by the Public Information Officer, the respondent no.4 made an application to the Uttarakhand

Information Commission, who in turn, remanded the said application to the appellate authority with a direction to decide the issue within one week.

4) Thereafter, the respondent no.4 filed an appeal before the appellate authority under the RTI Act on 24.11.2014. On 30.12.2014, the appellate

authority directed the Public Information Officer to provide a duplicate copy of service record of respondent no.4 within 15 days and also directed that

if the respondent no.4 is not satisfied with it, he may file an appeal before Commission within 90 days. But, the respondent no.4 filed an appeal after

two days of the appellate authority’s order.

5) On 04.03.2015, the State Information Commissioner fixed the case for imposing punishment. In the meanwhile, the PIO/Principal, GIC, Amodi

provided the duplicate copy of all documents of service record of respondent no.4. Thereafter, the respondent no.3-Commissioner, Uttarakhand

Information, vide order dated 26.08.2015, levied a penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner.

6) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was on medical leave w.e.f. 16.08.2014 to 28.09.2014; the department sent him for

participation in P.G. Diploma Programme in Educational Planning and Administration, New Delhi w.e.f. 07.10.2014 to 02.01.2015; the National

University of Educational Planning and Administration directed that the petitioner had to complete the project work from 03.01.2015 to 02.04.2015; he

was transferred from the post of District Education Officer, Champawat to the post of Principal, DIET, Pithoragarh and pursuant to this, he was

relieved on 30.07.2015; after 30.07.2015 he was not responsible of any delay.

7) Fine for delayed supply of information can be imposed only when delay was caused without there being any reasonable ground. This Court in the

case of Narendra Kumar Vs. Chief Information Commissioner, 2014 (2) UD 72 has held that penalty under Section 20 of the Right to Information can

be imposed for delayed supply of information, if delay was caused without any unreasonable ground. In the impugned order, it is nowhere stated that

information was supplied with delay without there being any sufficient reason. On the contrary, perusal of the information supplied would reveal that

the service record of respondent no.4 was not available in the office as it was sent to the Finance Officer. Apart from this, Annexure-4 to the writ

petition clearly shows that the petitioner was sent to New Delhi for the purpose of participation in P.G. Diploma Programme in Educational Planning

and Administration during the period from October, 2014 to March, 2015. There seems no unreasonable delay in supplying the information, therefore,

imposition of penalty seems to be totally unjustified.

8) Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Impugned order is hereby quashed. No order as to costs.