ORDER : 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 22.04.2022 passed by the State Information Commission /respondent No.2 imposing penalty upon the petitioner of Rs.25,000/- under the provision of Section 20 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short “ RTI Act”). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that State Information Commissioner in the impugned order has recorded that the notice was issued to the Public Information Officer/Block Education Officer, Surajpur, Block-Surajpur on 08.06.2020, 27.03.2021, 26.08.2021 and 22.01.2022, but there was no representation on behalf of the Block Education Officer/Public Information Officer nor any reply has been submitted. He submits that notices might have been issued on the date mentioned in the order, however, before the date of issuance of notice, petitioner was behind the bar in connection with some criminal case registered against him and pursuant to registration of criminal case and his arrest, petitioner was suspended by the competent authority vide order dated 09.07.2020. After suspension of the petitioner, one Pt. Bhardwaj was posted as Incharge Block Education Officer vide order dated 09.07.2020. He contended that as the order imposing penalty has been passed is in violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, the order so far as it relates to imposition of penalty upon the petitioner be set aside. The petitioner, at present is posted in the Office of Joint Director, District Education, Ambikapur. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposes the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that from the contents of order it is appearing that four notices were issued to Public Information Officer-cum-Block Education Officer, Surajpur and when notice was not responded, order has been passed in accordance with provision of the RTI Act which cannot be said to be erroneous. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that order under challenge is passed by respondent No.2. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents enclosed along with the petition. 6. Order Annexure P-1 passed by respondent No.2 mentions the date of issuance of notice. The first date of issuance of notice is 08.06.2020 and thereafter three other notices were issued on 27.03.2021, 26.08.2021 and 22.01.2022. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents enclosed along with the petition. 6. Order Annexure P-1 passed by respondent No.2 mentions the date of issuance of notice. The first date of issuance of notice is 08.06.2020 and thereafter three other notices were issued on 27.03.2021, 26.08.2021 and 22.01.2022. Annexure P-9 is an order issued by the Commissioner, Sarguja Division, Ambikapur on 09.07.2020 whereby the petitioner was suspended taking note of his arrest in connection with criminal case registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau. It is contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that prior to date of notice, petitioner was arrested which can be gathered from contents of order dated 09.07.2020. From the facts, it is appearing that at no point of time, notice issued by respondent No.2 was served upon him. 7. Section 20 of the RTI Act deals with penalties. Provision under Section 20 of the RTI Act is relevant in the facts of the case and therefore it is extracted below for ready reference: “20. From the facts, it is appearing that at no point of time, notice issued by respondent No.2 was served upon him. 7. Section 20 of the RTI Act deals with penalties. Provision under Section 20 of the RTI Act is relevant in the facts of the case and therefore it is extracted below for ready reference: “20. Penalties.—(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly 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, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.” (2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly 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, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him.” 8. Perusal of the provision under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act would show that before proceeding to impose penalty upon any of the Public Information Officer, the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, have to arrive at the conclusion that Public Information Officer, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within time specified under sub-Section (1) of Section 7 or malafidely denied the request. The first proviso to Section 20 of the RTI Act further provides for giving reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed upon Information Officer. The intent of provision is that the Commission after coming to conclusion that Public Information Officer for his act is liable to be penalized, have to issue notice in this regard. 9. In the case at hand, notice of second appeal itself was issued after suspension of petitioner from his post. Date and events of issuance of notice would show that the notices were issued after suspension of the petitioner. In the order there is no finding that the notice of appeal issued to petitioner was served upon him and as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner was never served with notice of appeal. 10. In the aforementioned facts of the case when it is mandatory provision for issuance of notice of appeal and after hearing the parties by the second appellate authority, when Commission forms opinion that penalty is to be imposed upon the Public Information Officer, further opportunity of hearing before imposing penalty has to be granted, this essential compliance is lacking in this case. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court order imposing penalty upon the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manohar S/o Manikrao Anchule Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2012) 13 SCC 14 :- “22. We may notice that proviso to Section 20(1) specifically contemplates that before imposing the penalty contemplated under Section 20(1), the Commission shall give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the concerned officer. However, there is no such specific provision in relation to the matters covered under Section 20(2). State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2012) 13 SCC 14 :- “22. We may notice that proviso to Section 20(1) specifically contemplates that before imposing the penalty contemplated under Section 20(1), the Commission shall give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the concerned officer. However, there is no such specific provision in relation to the matters covered under Section 20(2). Section 20(2) empowers the Central or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding a complaint or appeal for the reasons stated in that section, to recommend for disciplinary action to be taken against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the relevant service rules. Power to recommend disciplinary action is a power exercise of which may impose penal consequences. When such a recommendation is received, the disciplinary authority would conduct the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law and subject to satisfaction of the requirements of law. It is a “recommendation” and not a “mandate” to conduct an enquiry. “Recommendation” must be seen in contradistinction to “direction” or “mandate”. But recommendation itself vests the delinquent Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer with consequences which are of serious nature and can ultimately produce prejudicial results including misconduct within the relevant service rules and invite minor and/or major penalty. 23. Thus, the principles of natural justice have to be read into the provisions of Section 20(2). It is a settled canon of civil jurisprudence including service jurisprudence that no person be condemned unheard. Directing disciplinary action is an order in the form of recommendation which has far reaching civil consequences. It will not be permissible to take the view that compliance with principles of natural justice is not a condition precedent to passing of a recommendation under Section 20(2).” 12. In the aforementioned facts of the case and the decision in the case of Manohar (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the principles of natural justice have to be read into the provision of Section 20 (2) of the RTI Act where reasonable opportunity is not specifically provided under the statute. Petitioner is penalized under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act and, therefore, under the provision, providing opportunity of hearing before imposting penalty, is mandatory. 13. Petitioner is penalized under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act and, therefore, under the provision, providing opportunity of hearing before imposting penalty, is mandatory. 13. In the aforementioned facts of the case where the petitioner was not served with the notice of appeal nor further notice is issued to the petitioner for imposing penalty, impugned order passed by respondent No.1 so far as it relates to imposing penalty in violation of principles of natural justice, it is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 14. Accordingly, impugned order dated 22.04.2022 (Annexure P-1) so far as it relates to imposition of penalty upon the petitioner under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act is concerned, is set aside. Matter is remitted back to respondent No.2 for passing order in this regard afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 15. The petition is accordingly allowed in part.