Faulty RTI Penalty Order Overturned
The Jharkhand High Court ruled that penalties under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, cannot be imposed without first issuing notice to the responsible officer. The court set aside a ₹25,000 RTI penalty imposed on Ganesh Kumar, the then Additional Deputy Commissioner of East Singhbhum.
Case Background
Ganesh Kumar, designated as a Public Information Officer (PIO) by a departmental letter, received an RTI application from Bhola Prasad on 10.11.2010. The application sought information on mutation appeal proceedings. Since the matter fell under the Circle Officer’s jurisdiction, Kumar forwarded it to the Circle Officer on 09.12.2011 under Section 6(3) of the Act. The Circle Officer later provided the information.
Despite this, the applicant filed a second appeal. The State Information Commission then issued a show-cause notice to Ganesh Kumar. Even after the Circle Officer supplied the requested information, the Commission imposed a ₹25,000 penalty on Kumar, ordering salary deductions.
Petitioner’s Stance
Ganesh Kumar argued that he was not the designated PIO and had acted correctly by forwarding the application. He contended that he could only be treated as a deemed PIO under Section 5(5) of the RTI Act. He also pointed out that the Commission failed to issue notice to the Circle Officer, despite knowing he supplied the information. This, he argued, made the penalty arbitrary and legally unsustainable.
Court’s Ruling
The High Court found the penalty order procedurally flawed. It ruled that the Information Commission failed to follow Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. The court noted that the Commission knew the Circle Officer supplied the information but did not issue him a notice.
The court observed that before imposing a penalty, the Commission must identify the responsible officer. It stated, “when the Information Commission has taken the reference of supplying the information which admittedly has been supplied by the Circle Officer, then notice also ought to have been issued to the Circle Officer.”
Final Verdict
The High Court quashed the penalty order dated 26.08.2013. It remitted the matter back to the State Information Commission. The Commission must now issue fresh notices to both Kumar and the Circle Officer before making a new decision.
