Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 598 (JHR)

Kamala Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2023-05-01

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2023
JUDGMENT : Counsel for the petitioner submits that the date of impugned order has inadvertently been mentioned as “29.07.2016” instead of “25.07.2016” in different parts of the writ petition and thus he may be permitted to correct the same. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering that date of the impugned order has inadvertently been mentioned as “29.07.2016” instead of “25.07.2016” in different parts of the writ petition, counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make suitable correction in relevant part of the writ petition in course of the day. 3. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing order dated 25.07.2016 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission (the respondent no. 3) in Appeal Case No. 3140 of 2015, copy of which has been communicated to the petitioner as well as the respondent no. 2 vide memo no. 17117 dated 29.07.2016, whereby the Public Information Officer-cum-District Programme Officer, Giridih has been imposed penalty of Rs.25,000/- under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short, “the Act, 2005”) and he has been directed to get the said penalty amount deducted from his salary in five equal installments by depositing the same in the District Treasury, Giridih, as well as to produce evidence in that regard on the next date of hearing. 4. The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner joined as Public Information Officer-cum-District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer, Giridih on 04.07.2016 (afternoon). The said fact has been stated by the petitioner in the supplementary affidavit dated 25.04.2023. It is further submitted that since the application filed by the respondent no. 2 seeking information under the Act, 2005 was received in the office of the Public Information Officer-cum-District Programme Officer, Giridih on 06.07.2015 which was ultimately provided to her vide letter no. 24/RTI dated 27.01.2016 issued by the petitioner’s predecessor namely Mahmood Alam, the respondent no.3 should not have imposed penalty under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005 upon the subsequent Public Information Officer, Giridih i.e., the petitioner, without verifying the said fact. 5. No one appears on behalf of the respondent no. 2 despite valid service of notice upon her. 6. Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 5. No one appears on behalf of the respondent no. 2 despite valid service of notice upon her. 6. Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 3, submits that on perusal of impugned order dated 25.07.2016, it seems that the said factual aspect was not brought to the notice of the respondent no. 3 by the petitioner. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. It appears that an application dated 01.07.2015 seeking information under the Act, 2005 was sent by the respondent no. 2 through registered post to the office of the Public Information Officer-cum-District Programme Officer, Giridih which was received in the said office on 06.07.2015. Since the said information was related to Para Teachers of different schools situated in Giridih Panchayat of Dhanwar Block, District-Giridih, the same was sought by the Public Information Officer-cum-District Programme Officer, Giridih from the Block Education Extension Officer, Dhanwar vide letter dated 07.07.2015 followed by reminders dated 26.09.2015 and 18.12.2015. Subsequently, in response to the said letters, the Block Information Officer, Dhanwar-2, vide letter no. 215 dated 23.01.2016, made the required information available to the office of the Public Information Officer-cum-District Programme Officer, Giridih. The said fact has been explained by the petitioner in his letter no. 220/RTI dated 21.07.2016 (Anneuxre-4 to the writ petition) written to the Under Secretary, State Information Commission, Jharkhand, Ranchi. 9. The petitioner in his supplementary affidavit dated 25.04.2023, has also annexed a copy of charge report (part of Annexure-7 Series) showing that the charge of District Superintendent of Education, Giridih was handed over to him by Mahmood Alam on 04.07.2016 in the afternoon. Thereafter, vide office order as contained in memo no. 1396 dated 20.07.2016 issued by the State Project Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council, District Superintendents of Education of 17 districts were given charge of District Programme Officers of the concerned districts. The name of the petitioner has been mentioned at serial no. 12 of the said office order suggesting that he was also given the charge of District Programme Officer, Giridih. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts, it appears that the petitioner was not involved in providing information to the respondent no. 2 pursuant to her application dated 01.07.2015 (received in the office of the Public Information Officer-cum-District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer, Giridih on 06.07.2015). 10. In view of the aforesaid facts, it appears that the petitioner was not involved in providing information to the respondent no. 2 pursuant to her application dated 01.07.2015 (received in the office of the Public Information Officer-cum-District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer, Giridih on 06.07.2015). Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.07.2016 passed by the respondent no. 3 in Appeal Case No. 3140 of 2015 is set aside. 11. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.