ORDER : 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 19.01.2023 whereby Respondent No. 1 has passed an order imposing penalty under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short “RTI Act”) against petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the order imposing penalty against petitioner is passed without giving opportunity of hearing to him. Petitioner though was posted as Tahsildar, Ambikapur when the application under the RTI Act was filed, however, petitioner was transferred to district Rajnandgaon in the year 2018 vide order dated 31.07.2018 and pursuant to the order of transfer he was also relieved on 23.08.2018. It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that issuance of notice which is forming part of the impugned order Annexure P-1 to the Tahsildar, Ambikapur was on 13.11.2019 and thereafter on the date of issuance of notice petitioner was not posted inthe office of Tahsildar, Ambikapur and therefore he was not aware of the proceedings initiated and pending before Respondent No.1. For the said reasons, petitioner failed to appear and submit his explanation/ reply to the show-cause notice and could not able to defend in appropriate manner and therefore the order Annexure P-1 imposing penalty upon petitioner is in violation of principles of natural justice and it be set aside. In support of this contention that petitioner was transferred vide order dated 31.07.2018 and relieved on 23.08.2018, he relied upon the memo dated 08.10.2018, Annexure P-3. He submits that petitioner is presently posted as Nazul Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh. 3. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 submits that Respondent No. 1 while considering the second appeal has particularly recorded that eight notices were issued to Tahsildar, Ambikapur, however, reply to any of the notice was not submitted and thereafter Respondent No. 1 has passed the order Annexure P-1 which cannot be said to be erroneous. 4. Learned State counsel also referred to the paragraph 6 of the order Annexure P-1 and would submit that Respondent No. 1 has issued about seven notices to the petitioner and therefore the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice is not acceptable. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Perusal of order Annexure P-1 would show that the State Information Commissioner in paragraph 6 has recorded date on which notice were issued to Public Information Officer cum Tahsildar, Ambikapur, first notice was issued on 13.11.2019 and subsequently in the year 2021 and 2022. Copy of memo Annexure P-3 which is placed on record is dated 08.10.2018 issued by the Additional Collector, Sarguja to the Collector, District Rajnandgaon mentions that pursuant to the order of transfer dated 31.07.2018 issued by the State Government, petitioner-was relieved from the office of Tahsildar, Ambikapur on 23.08.2018. From the said document, it is appearing that on the date of issuance of notice on 13.11.2019, petitioner was not holding the post of Public Information Officer cum Tahsildar, Ambikapur. From the order it is also reflecting that the incumbent who joined the post of Tahsildar at office at Ambikapur has also not sent any information to Respondent No. 1 of the transfer of the then Public Information Officer ie. petitioner by submitting any reply/ application. 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. petitioner by submitting any reply/ application. 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, has to issue notice in this regard. 9. Under the provision, not only issuance of notice of appeal is mandatory but when after hearing the parties by the second appellate authority, 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. 10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manohar S/o Manikrao Anchule Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2012) 13 SCC 14 observed thus:- “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. 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).” 11. 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. In first proviso to Section 20(1) of the RTI Act word shallis used which make the provision of being given reasonable opportunity of being heard before imposing penalty, mandatory. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of learned counsel for respective parties, particularly the date of issuance of first notice i.e. on 13.11.2019 and date of transfer of petitioner as well as the date of relieving of petitioner which is prior to the issuance of notice, this writ petition is allowed and the order dated 19.01.2023 (Annexure P-1) is set aside, matter is remitted back to Respondent No.1 for passing order afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to petitioner.