JUDGMENT : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 11.08.2008 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) passed by the Jharkhand State Information Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’) in Appeal No. 688/2007 whereby a penalty of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2005’) upon the petitioner to be deducted from his salary in five equal instalments as well as recommendation has been made for initiation of departmental proceeding against him under Section 20(2) of the Act, 2005. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner held the post of the Public Information Officer-cum-Conservator of Forest, Core Area, Tiger Project, Daltonganj at the time of filing of the writ petition. The petitioner received a letter on 17.01.2008 issued by the Under Secretary of the Commission annexing a copy of order dated 18.12.2007 passed by the Commission in Appeal No. 688/2007 communicated to him vide memo No. 8079 dated 20.12.2007 whereby he was directed to remain physically present before the Commission on 21.01.2008. Thereafter, he intimated the Commission vide letter No. 111 dated 21.01.2008 that his office had never received any application of the respondent No.2 seeking information and also requested to make available a copy of the application of the respondent No.2 so that the required information could be provided. The petitioner also stated inter alia that since the said letter of the Commission was not received by him in time, he was unable to remain physically present on 21.01.2008. Subsequently, notice was issued by the Under Secretary of the Commission to the petitioner on 22.01.2008 whereby he was directed to remain physically present before the Commission on the next date i.e. 19.02.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner deputed the Head Clerk of his office, namely, Nawal Kishore Sinha to appear before the Commission on 19.02.2008 and on the said date, a copy of the memo of appeal filed by the respondent No.2 before the Commission was served to the representative of the petitioner whereby two points information was sought. Thereafter, the petitioner deputed the Head Clerk of his office, namely, Nawal Kishore Sinha to appear before the Commission on 19.02.2008 and on the said date, a copy of the memo of appeal filed by the respondent No.2 before the Commission was served to the representative of the petitioner whereby two points information was sought. Before the next date of hearing i.e. on 18.03.2008, the required information relating to the funds granted by the government for the years 2005-2006 & 2006-2007 along with expenditure incurred under several heads of forestry and wildlife (Tiger Project) was sent by the petitioner to the Commission vide letter No. 463 dated 14.03.2008 and so far as the second information was concerned, the Commission was informed that a cost of Rs.2,000/- was required to be deposited by the respondent No.2 for getting 500 copies of the Muster Roll used for the year 2005-2006 & 2006-2007. 3. The petitioner was further informed that the next date of hearing was on 22.04.2008, however, he could not appear on the said date. Thereafter, he did not receive any information either from the Commission or from the respondent No.2 and as such he was under bonafide belief that his response sent to the Commission was accepted as he had partly furnished the required information and had also expressed his willingness to provide other part of required information by supplying photo copies of the Muster Roll on payment of cost. On perusal of the impugned order dated 11.08.2008, it however appears that after 22.04.2008, as many as five dates were fixed in the matter, however, the petitioner had no knowledge about the same and hence there was no question of violation of any order of the Commission by him. 4. It is further submitted that the Commission has wrongly held that there is no provision in the Act, 2005 to make payment of any fee for furnishing the required information and the said finding of the Commission is contrary to Section 7(1) of the Act, 2005 as well as Rule 4 of the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005. Otherwise also, on 19.02.2008, the petitioner received a copy of the Memo of Appeal dated 11.08.2007 filed by the respondent No.2 before the Commission and immediately thereafter he partly provided the required information to the respondent No.2 within one month from the date of receipt of the same. Thus, he has not violated any provision of the Act, 2005. 5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the Commission submits that the respondent No.2 had filed an application on 18.04.2007 before the Public Information Officer i.e. the Project Officer, Tiger Project, Betla, Palamau for providing certain information under the Act, 2005, however, the required information was not provided to him within the time stipulated under Section 7(1) of the Act, 2005. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority on 05.07.2007, however, the said authority did not pass any order and hence the respondent No.2 preferred second appeal before the Commission on 11.08.2007 which was registered as Appeal No. 688/2007 wherein the notices were issued to the parties on 30.08.2007. Despite issuance of repeated notices to the Public Information Officer, he neither appeared before the Commission nor made any communication with the Commission with respect to providing information to the respondent No.2. The Commission issued show cause notice to the Public Information Officer and directed him to appear in person on 21.01.2008 as well as to provide information to the respondent No.2. However, the Public Information Officer neither appeared before the Commission nor provided the information to the respondent No.2. Thereafter, the Commission granted last opportunity to the Public Information Officer directing him to appear in person before it on 19.02.2008 and to show cause as to why an order imposing penalty under Section 20(1) and recommending initiation of departmental proceeding under section 20(2) be not passed against him. On the next date of hearing i.e. 19.02.2008, the representative of the Public Information Officer appeared before the Commission and on his request, a copy of memo of appeal filed by the respondent No.2 was provided to him and the case was adjourned to 18.03.2008 with a direction to provide information to the respondent No.2. On the next date of hearing i.e. 19.02.2008, the representative of the Public Information Officer appeared before the Commission and on his request, a copy of memo of appeal filed by the respondent No.2 was provided to him and the case was adjourned to 18.03.2008 with a direction to provide information to the respondent No.2. On the next date of hearing i.e. 18.03.2008, the Public Information Officer appeared and filed the copy of the information before the Commission and thereafter the hearing of the case was adjourned to 22.04.2008 and on that date, the respondent No.2 filed his objection before the Commission claiming that as per the provisions of the Act, 2005, the cost of the photo copies could be demanded by the Public Information Officer only within 30 days from the date of receipt of the application, but in the present case, no such demand was made by him within 30 days of the submission of the application and as such the Public Information Officer was duty bound to provide information to the respondent No.2 without any cost. 6. Thereafter, the Commission repeatedly directed the Public Information Officer to provide information to the respondent No.2 free of cost, however, he neither appeared before the Commission nor filed reply to the objection raised by the respondent No.2 and as such the Commission vide impugned order dated 11.08.2008, imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon him in terms with Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005 as well as made recommendation for initiation of departmental proceeding against him in terms with Section 20(2) of the Act, 2005. The representative of the petitioner was present on 19.02.2008 and the next date of hearing was also fixed for 18.03.2008 in his presence. On 18.03.2008, the petitioner himself appeared before the Commission and in his presence, the next date of hearing was fixed for 22.04.2008. Hence, the petitioner cannot take plea that he was not aware about the dates fixed in the appeal. 7. Notice issued to the respondent No.2 through ordinary process has been validly served to him as would be evident from the service report dated 22.11.2022, however, no one appears on his behalf. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. 7. Notice issued to the respondent No.2 through ordinary process has been validly served to him as would be evident from the service report dated 22.11.2022, however, no one appears on his behalf. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 11.08.2008 passed by the Commission imposing penalty of Rs.25,000/- under Section 20(1) as well as recommending initiation of departmental proceeding under Section 20(2) of the Act, 2005 against him. 9. Thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was not the Public Information Officer at the time of submission of the application by the respondent No.2 and for the first time the memo of appeal filed by the respondent No.2 was served by the Commission to the representative of the petitioner on 19.02.2008 and immediately thereafter he furnished Information No.1 before the Commission also stating that Rs.2,000/- was required to be deposited being the cost of photocopy of 500 pages of Muster Roll for providing Information No.2. It has been contended that the petitioner was not aware of the order of the Commission with respect to providing information to the respondent No.2 free of cost as five notices issued by the Commission after 22.04.2008 were not served to him. 10. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Commission has contended that the petitioner knowingly did not provide the information to the respondent No.2 and was also negligent in complying the order of the Commission. 11. Before coming to the merit of the said contention of the petitioner, it would be appropriate to refer a judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Tarni Prasad Mukhiya Vs. Jharkhand State Information Commission & Ors. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 1132 wherein it has been held as under: “15. 11. Before coming to the merit of the said contention of the petitioner, it would be appropriate to refer a judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Tarni Prasad Mukhiya Vs. Jharkhand State Information Commission & Ors. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 1132 wherein it has been held as under: “15. On perusal of the provisions of Section 20(1), it would transpire that the Central Information Commissioner or the State Information Commissioner, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complain or appeal, has to form an opinion that (i) the Central Public Information Officer or the State Information Officer, as the case may be, has without any reasonable cause refused to receive the application for information (ii) has not furnished the information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 (iii) malafidely denied the request for information (iv) has intentionally given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information. So far as Section 20(2) of the Act, 2005 is concerned, the said conditions are pari-materia to those in Section 20(1), except that the word ‘persistently’ has been mentioned in condition No. (i). 16. In the case of Manohar v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 13 SCC 14 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:— “15. The State Information Commissions exercise very wide and certainly quasi-judicial powers. In fact their functioning is akin to the judicial system rather than the executive decision-making process. It is a settled principle of law and does not require us to discuss this principle with any elaboration that adherence to the principles of natural justice is mandatory for such Tribunal or bodies discharging such functions. 16. The State Information Commission has been vested with wide powers including imposition of penalty or taking of disciplinary action against the employees. Exercise of such power is bound to adversely affect or bring civil consequences to the delinquent. Thus, the provisions relating to penalty or to penal consequences have to be construed strictly. It will not be open to the Court to give them such liberal construction that it would be beyond the specific language of the statute or would be in violation of the principles of natural justice.” 17. Thus, the provisions relating to penalty or to penal consequences have to be construed strictly. It will not be open to the Court to give them such liberal construction that it would be beyond the specific language of the statute or would be in violation of the principles of natural justice.” 17. In the case of Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur, (2011) 15 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that before passing the order of penalty under Section 20 of the Act, 2005, the Commissioner must satisfy himself that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide. 18. Section 20 of the Act, 2005 is to be treated as a harsh provision and as such before imposing penalty or recommending for initiation of departmental proceeding, an opinion has to be formed by the Commission that the Public Information Officer has not furnished the information within the time specified without any reasonable cause. There must be an objective consideration by the Commission on the basis of the relevant materials on which the conclusion about such action is drawn. 19. Since the petitioner was not posted as the Public Information Officer on the date of making application under the Act, 2005 by the respondent No. 3 i.e. on 05.08.2014, the conditions Nos. (i) & (ii) shall not apply to him. So far as other conditions are concerned, the same are also not proved against the petitioner. It is also not the case that the petitioner at any point of time has refused to receive an application seeking information or has not furnished information within the time frame or has denied the request for information with malafide intention or has knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information to the respondent No. 3. Moreover, there is no such allegation against the petitioner that he destroyed the information which was the subject of the request or he obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information. That apart, the Commission in the impugned order has strongly put reliance on the statement made by the then Public Information Officer on 20.06.2016 and has also considered the delay occurred in providing the information while imposing penalty against the petitioner without having any concrete evidence to show that the act of the petitioner, who was assigned the duty of the Public Information Officer in the month of July, 2017 was not bonafide. 20. Under the said circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Information Commissioner while passing the impugned order of imposing penalty of Rs. 25,000/- against the petitioner under Section 20(1) and directing his controlling authority to initiate departmental proceeding against him under Section 20(2) of the Act, 2005 has transgressed the provisions of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, 2005. The observation made by the Information Commissioner in the said order to the extent that the petitioner was not deliberately providing the information to the respondent No. 3 and that he was misleading the Commission also do not appear to be correct.” 12. In the case in hand, it is evident that the application seeking certain information under the Act, 2005 was filed by the respondent No.2 on 18.04.2007 before the Project Officer, Tiger Project, Betla, Palamau whereas the petitioner had joined as the Conservator of Forest, Core Area, Tiger Project, Daltonganj on 07.11.2007 and hence the period stipulated under Section 7(1) of the Act, 2005 for providing information had already come to an end before the joining of the petitioner. The petitioner’s contention that for the first time on 19.02.2008, he came to know about the information sought by the respondent No.2, has not been controverted by the respondent-Commission. On 22.04.2008, the Commission passed the order for providing information to the respondent No.2 free of cost, however, on that date, the petitioner could not appear before the Commission. Thereafter, notices were issued to the petitioner by the Commission on 07.05.2008, 21.05.2008, 21.06.2008, 17.07.2008 & 11.08.2008, however, according to the petitioner, the said notices were not served to him and the said contention of the petitioner has also not been controverted by the Commission. 13. Most importantly, the petitioner was also not the Public Information Officer of the Office of the Project Officer, Tiger Project, Betla, Palamau at any point of time, rather he being a senior officer was the Conservator of Forest, Core Area, Tiger Project, Daltonganj w.e.f. 07.11.2007 and was the Public Information Officer of that office where no such application was made by the respondent No.2. The said crucial aspect was overlooked by the Commission. 14. The said crucial aspect was overlooked by the Commission. 14. Otherwise also, since the petitioner had no knowledge about the order of the Commission to provide information to the respondent No.2 free of cost, I am of the view that the Commission has wrongly observed that the petitioner knowingly did not provide the information to the respondent No.2. Any malafide intention has also not been proved against the petitioner, rather it appears that the petitioner, after receiving the memo of appeal filed by the respondent No.2 before the Commission, acted promptly and provided Information No. 1 as well as he also gave intimation for deposit of cost of photocopy to provide Information No. 2. Thus, the conduct of the petitioner appears to be bonafide. 15. One of the essential ingredients for passing the order under Section 20(1) & 20(2) of the Act, 2005 is to provide an opportunity of hearing to the person against whom the action is sought to be taken by the Commission, however, in the case in hand, no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 11.08.2008. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned order dated 11.08.2008 passed by the respondent-Commission cannot be sustained in law and the same is hereby quashed. 17. The present writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.