JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2. 2. Notice upon respondent no.3 has already been served and Vakalatnama has also been filed on behalf of respondent no.3, but nobody appears on behalf of respondent no. 3. It has been submitted that on earlier occasions also, nobody was appearing on behalf of respondent no.3. 3. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he will correct the party position with regard to respondent no.2, in course of the day. 4. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 06.02.2015 passed in Appeal No. 1301 of 2012 by the Acting Chief Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission, whereby, compensation of Rs.25,000/-has been imposed upon the petitioner under Section 19(8)(b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 5. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application was filed by respondent no.3 on 29.02.2012 seeking certain information about the posting of Engineers. He further submits that the then Public Information Officer provided information to the complainant on 24.04.2012 and on 15.05.2012. The said information is annexed at Annexure-6 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. He further submits that the complainant remained dissatisfied and filed Second Appeal before Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi, where, the representative of the Public Information Officer appeared on 31.01.2014 and submitted that all information sought by the complainant have been furnished to him, but the matter remained pending for show cause to Public Information Officer regarding delay in furnishing information to the complainant. He further submits that the petitioner was not posted there when the information was sought. The petitioner was posted as District Engineer-cum-Public Information Officer on and from 27.08.2014 vide order dated 06.09.2014. He further submits that such posting order dated 27.08.2014 is annexed at Annexure-8 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. He also submits that it is clear that the petitioner was not posted there when the complaint was filed. He further submits that although it was recorded later on by the Information Commission that the petitioner has already appeared, but no positive order was passed in favour of the petitioner. He also submits that it is clear that the petitioner was not posted there when the complaint was filed. He further submits that although it was recorded later on by the Information Commission that the petitioner has already appeared, but no positive order was passed in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner was a little bit late in appearing before the Information Commission as he was travelling from Chaibasa for appearing before the Information Commission. He further submits that the impugned order has been passed under Section 19 (8)(b) of the Act, 2005 against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is not a public authority as he was a Public Information Officer. He further submits that Section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005 is not applicable with regard to the petitioner. He further submits that this issue has already been decided by this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Chopra v. The State of Jharkhand , reported in 2019 0 Supreme (Jhk) 651. 6. Per contra, Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order. He further submits that the petitioner was not present on that day, that is why the impugned order has been passed. 7. In light of the above submissions, it is clear that the petitioner was not posted as Information Officer at the time when the complaint was filed. Even at the time of hearing of the appeal, the petitioner was not there as he was posted as District Engineer-cum-Public Information Officer on and from 27.08.2014. Moreover, certain information was already provided by earlier Information Officer to the information seeker and, therefore, Section 19(8)(b) is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. It has been held by this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Chopra v. The State of Jharkhand , reported in 2019 0 Supreme (Jhk) 651. 8. Paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 of the said judgment are quoted herein below: 16. The object of the Act to compensate the complainant by the Public Authority is for the reason that it is the Public Authority who is supposed to keep the document in safe custody and if the document is not found available, the compensation is required to be paid by the Public Authority. The object of the Act to compensate the complainant by the Public Authority is for the reason that it is the Public Authority who is supposed to keep the document in safe custody and if the document is not found available, the compensation is required to be paid by the Public Authority. Simultaneously, the State Public Information Officer who is the designated officer by the Public Authority, has also been casted some responsibility/accountability to provide the information sought for by the information seeker and if there would be any negligence in discharge of the aforesaid duty, the provision of penalty as also recommendation to initiated departmental proceeding has been provided under the provision of Section 20(2). The provision of Section 20(1) provides that if the Information Commission will come to a conclusion that the information seeker has malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading in formation or destroyed in formation which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day tiapplication is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees. Provided that the Public Information Officer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him. The provision of penalty under Section 20 has been inserted by way of deteent provision so that in case of violation of the purpose and object of the Act, the penalty is to be imposed upon the concerned Public Information Officer either of the Central or the State Government, as the case may be, but prior to that an opportunity of hearing is required to be provided. 17. In the light of the aforesaid legal position and after going across the impugned order it is evident there from that the Information Commissioner has exercised the power confeed under Section 19(8)(b) as also Section 21(1) and (2) and has passed the order first for compensating the information seeker by making payment of Rs.20,000/-in his favour and secondly, imposing penalty of Rs.25,000/-under Section 20(1) and recommendation to initiate department proceeding under Section 20(2) of the Act, 2005. 18. 18. As has been answered hereinabove, the power confeed under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005 pertaining to a direction to compensate the information seeker by the Public Information Officer as has been directed in the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law for the reason as discussed hereinabove that the Public Information Officer being not the Public Authority, cannot be inflicted with the liability to compensate the information seeker, rather, it is upon the Public Authority.” 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and the judgment, the impugned order cannot survive. Accordingly, the order dated 06.02.2015 passed in Appeal No.1301 of 2012 by the Acting Chief In formation Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission is quashed. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.