AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 202 wordsM.M.S. Bedi, J. (Oral) - The petitioner exercises the powers of Public Information Officer. He has questioned the legality and propriety of order dated February 17, 2016 (Annexure P-10), by virtue of which penalty of Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed upon him and disciplinary proceedings have been ordered to be initiated against him for having not, putting in appearance before the State Information Commissioner.
It has been explained on behalf of the petitioner that on account of Jat agitation in the State, he was not able to appear before the above said Authority.
It is informed that the sum of Rs. 25,000/- has already been recovered from the petitioner.
I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case. The plea put forth by the petitioner for non appearance before the State Information Commissioner appears to be fairly plausible. It is settled principle of law that a hammer is not to be used to swat a fly. The petitioner appears to have not committed an act warranting disciplinary proceedings.
In the aforesaid circumstances, impugned order, Annexure P-10, so far as the direction for launching of disciplinary proceedings is concerned, is set aside.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.