ORDER : Aggrieved by order dated 28.10.2015 whereby, Information Commissioner has imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and ordered initiation of departmental proceeding against the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, on the allegation of theft of electricity a First Information Report was lodged on 11.10.2012 against the respondent no. 5 and others. The respondent no. 5 submitted application dated 29.10.2012 under RTI seeking certain informations and he was supplied the informations. The respondent no. 5 again sought certain informations regarding shutdown of electricity at Jobora Feeder and Feeder no. 2 (Gandhi Maidan) between 16.00 pm to 20.00 pm on 11.10.2012. Respondent no. 5 also sought photocopy of Shutdown Register at Sindur Sub Station. The respondent no. 5 preferred Appeal No. 17 of 2014 on 04.07.2014 and, on supply of informations to the respondent no 5, the appeal was disposed of on 21.11.2014. The respondent no. 5 however, preferred Second Appeal being Appeal No. 1776 of 2014 before the Information Commissioner and in the said proceeding notices were issued to the Public Information Officer-cum-Electrical Executive Engineer. In the proceeding before the Information Commissioner, Public Information Officer did not appear and vide order dated 28.10.2015 penalty of Rs. 25,000/has been imposed upon him. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Mr. Vikash Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner authorised his subordinate to furnish information to the respondent no. 5 and to appear before the Information Commissioner. The authorisation to the Assistant Electrical Engineer vide letter dated 23.09.2015, in terms of Section 7 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, is an order whereunder, the Assistant Electrical Engineer became the Public Information Officer. It is contended that for nonappearance of the Assistant Electrical Engineer before the Information Commissioner, penalty under Section 20 cannot be imposed upon the petitioner. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents on record. 6. The materials brought on record discloses that the petitioner admits that informations sought by the respondent no. 5 were relevant informations. In the proceeding before the appellate authority, respondent no. 5 raised objection on 24.09.2014 regarding manipulation in the second page of the Shutdown Register dated 11.10.2012. Since the objection raised by the respondent no. 5 was not entertained by the appellate authority, respondent no. 5 were relevant informations. In the proceeding before the appellate authority, respondent no. 5 raised objection on 24.09.2014 regarding manipulation in the second page of the Shutdown Register dated 11.10.2012. Since the objection raised by the respondent no. 5 was not entertained by the appellate authority, respondent no. 5 preferred second appeal. 7. A perusal of the impugned order dated 28.10.2015 discloses that the Public Information Officer was granted opportunities to appear in Appeal No. 1776 of 2014 and discloses his defence. It appears that vide order dated 12.08.2015, the Public Information Officer was cautioned to appear in the proceeding, failing which order under Section 20 was contemplated. The petitioner who joined the post of Electrical Executive Engineer-cum-Public Information Officer on 07.07.2015 had the knowledge of order dated 12.08.2015. The only plea taken by the petitioner for his nonappearance in Appeal No. 1776 of 2014 is that, he authorised the Assistant Electrical Engineer to appear before the Information Commissioner however, he did not appeared. I am not inclined to accept the plea taken by the petitioner. The plea raised in reference to Section 5(5) is misconceived. The Assistant Electrical Engineer is not the person in possession of the informations sought by the complainant nor he can be alleged to have contravened any provision of the Act. In view of serious nature of allegation and order dated 12.08.2015, imposition of penalty upon the petitioner for nonappearance before the Information Commissioner does not warrant interference by the Court. I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.