ORDER : Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the file of the first respondent in connection with the orders made in case No.1080/Enquiry/D/2014( 13913 and 28472) /D/2014 dated 27.7.2015 served on 24.8.2015 and quash the same. This Writ Petition has been filed against the impugned order passed by the first respondent, the Registrar, State Information Commission, Chennai in his proceedings D/2014 (13913 and 28472)/D/2014) dated 27.07.2015 signed on 13.08.2015. Relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under:- 2. By the impugned order, the first respondent has accepted the petition filed by the second respondent and has imposed penalty of Rs.25,000/- on the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act (RTI) Act, 2005 for declaring to furnish information sought for by the second respondent. 3. The specific case of the petitioner is that the second respondent was an employee of the Tamil Nadu Adidravidar Housing and Development Corporation (TAHDCO) and was suspended from service after conducting an enquiry on 29.06.2011 and thereafter was imposed with a fine of Rs.3,15,000/-. Frustrated with the punishment imposed, the second respondent abused the provisions of the RTI Act and preferred about 18 different applications and sought for information’s which pertained to other co-delinquents. It is submitted that the information’s sought for by the second respondent were not furnished as they were personal in nature. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned order imposing a penalty of Rs.25,000/- on the petitioner as a Public Information Officer under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act was liable to be quashed and interfered with. 4. This writ petition is defended by the learned counsel for the first respondent stating that the impugned order is well-reasoned and requires no interference. It is submitted that, apart from the second respondent, the others were also subjected to certain disciplinary proceedings and therefore, the second respondent wanted the informations regarding the punishment and the fine imposed on the other co-delinquents. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand would submit that these informations cannot be furnished as they were third private informations and are not required to be furnished under the provisions of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand would submit that these informations cannot be furnished as they were third private informations and are not required to be furnished under the provisions of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act. It is further submitted that the co-delinquents also objected to furnish the informations sought for and therefore the impugned order passed by the first respondent is liable to be interfered. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the leaned counsel for the first respondent. The disclosure of information which the petitioner had refused to part with as a Public Information Officer pertain to the punishment imposed on other Co- delinquents who were punished along with the second respondent can be denied only if the third party information regarding the punishment imposed on the co-delinquent were classified as “confidential”. 7. Under section 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 only those information which are treated as confidential information, notice is to be issued to the third party regarding the proposed disclosure of information or record or part thereof, and invite such third party to give a submission either in writing or orally, as to whether such information sought for could be disclosed or not. Only under those circumstances, the submission of such third-party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information. Only under those circumstances, the submission of such third-party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information. Section 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 Act, reads as under:- 1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party. (2) Where a notice is served by the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under sub-section (1) to a third party in respect of any information or record or part thereof, the third party shall, within ten days from the date of receipt of such notice, be given the opportunity to make representation against the proposed disclosure. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within forty days after receipt of the request under section 6, if the third party has been given an opportunity to make representation under sub-section (2), make a decision as to whether or not to disclose the information or record or part thereof and give in writing the notice of his decision to the third party. (4) A notice given under sub-section (3) shall include a statement that the third party to whom the notice is given is entitled to prefer an appeal under section 19 against the decision”. 8. Therefore, unless the information that was sought for by the second respondent was classified as a “confidential information” of the co-delinquent, question of seeking the views of such third party, co-deliquent does not arise. The order of punishment imposed on a co-delinquent cannot be termed to be a “confidential information” of co-delinquent/ third-party. When punishments are imposed they are not only to act as retribution but are also expected to act as a deterrent on others from committing similar mistakes. Therefore, punishments imposed on a co-delinquent cannot be termed to be a “confidential information”. 9. Therefore, the second respondent has the right to know as to how under a similar circumstances, punishment was imposed on a co-delinquent. By disclosing information, the person seeking information can also ascertain whether in the quasi-judicial proceedings and disciplinary proceedings the authority is giving different treatment to different persons. Disclosure of such information would also instill a sense of discipline and will rule out any personal biases in such proceeding. 10. The petitioner as the Public Information Officer ought to have therefore disclosed the information sought for by the second respondent for even it was inconvenient to the management. As a Public Information Officer, it was no part of the duty of the petitioner to deny the information which are not “confidential in nature” merely because it pertains to third-party. The petitioner having failed to furnish the information has been therefore rightly imposed with penalty under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 11. In my view, the order of the first respondent imposing a penalty on the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is well reasoned and requires no interference. Therefore, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.