JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 07.06.2019 passed by the State Information Commissioner (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) in Appeal Case No. 1994/2015 preferred by the respondent No.3 whereby the petitioner, who at that time was holding the post of the District Engineer-cum-Public Information Officer, Zila Parishad, Gumla, was imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2005’] and his controlling officer was directed to initiate departmental proceeding against him under Section 20(2) of the Act, 2005. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the information under Section 6 of the Act, 2005 was sought by the respondent No.3 from the office of the District Engineer, Zila Parishad, Gumla-cum-Public Information Officer on 05.08.2014 which was supplied to him on 30.08.2014. The respondent No.3 being dissatisfied with the furnished information, preferred first appeal before the respondent No.2 on 29.09.2014 and during the said proceeding, the information in part was provided to him on 18.10.2014. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 preferred second appeal before the State Information Commission, Jharkhand [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’] which was registered as Appeal Case No. 1994/2015. The then Public Information Officer, Zila Parishad, Gumla vide his letter No.1 dated 08.01.2016, wrote to the respondent No.3 that all the desired informations were already furnished to him and his request to provide detailed information in specific format, as framed by him, did not fall under the provisions of the Act, 2005 and hence the same could not be provided to him. During pendency of the said appeal before the Commission, the petitioner joined the post of the District Engineer, Zila Parishad, Gumla in the month of July, 2017 and thereafter being the Public Information Officer of the said office, he appeared before the Commission on different dates. The matter was heard on 07.06.2019 and the petitioner requested for time since the dealing clerk was on leave and the petitioner had no knowledge about the file. 3. The matter was heard on 07.06.2019 and the petitioner requested for time since the dealing clerk was on leave and the petitioner had no knowledge about the file. 3. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order dated 07.06.2019 passed by the Information Commissioner is that a penalty of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed against the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005 and a direction has been given to his controlling authority to initiate departmental proceeding against him under Section 20(2) of the Act, 2005 without appreciating the fact that the petitioner was actually not involved in providing the information to the respondent No.3 during the relevant period. In fact, he joined the said post on much later date that too after about two years of filing of the appeal before the Commission. 4. It is further submitted that the Information Commissioner transgressed the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, 2005 while imposing penalty as well as directing the controlling authority to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner did not violate any of the conditions as mentioned in sub-section (1) as well as sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, 2005 so as to be imposed a penalty as well as to face the departmental proceeding. Perusal of the impugned order dated 07.06.2019 would clearly suggest that the Information Commissioner instead of following the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, 2005, has discussed about the conduct of the petitioner which is not at all relevant while exercising the power under the said Section. 5. No one appears on behalf of the respondent No.3 despite valid service of notice to him. 6. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, submits that despite specific direction of the Information Commissioner, no show cause reply was filed by the petitioner. Moreover, he made contrary statements before the Commission. In fact, on 20.06.2016, in course of hearing, the Public Information Officer submitted before the Commission that the required information was already given to the respondent No.3 and hence the respondent No.3 was directed to file his objection against the furnished information. On the subsequent date i.e. on 26.05.2017, the respondent No.3 (the appellant) was provided last opportunity to file his objection or to put his defence. On the subsequent date i.e. on 26.05.2017, the respondent No.3 (the appellant) was provided last opportunity to file his objection or to put his defence. However, on 14.12.2017, the respondent No.3 appeared and stated that desired information was not made available against his application. Thereafter, on 14.08.2018, the Public Information Officer or his representative was absent and he was directed to clarify his position on the next date of hearing. On 07.06.2019, the petitioner submitted before the Commission that the information was being searched. In the said circumstance, no option was left with the Commission but to impose penalty upon the petitioner under Section 20(1) and to direct his controlling authority to initiate departmental proceeding against him under Section 20(2) of the Act, 2005. It was also observed by the Information Commissioner in the impugned order dated 07.06.2019 that the intention of the petitioner was to mislead the Commission in a matter which was pending since 2015 and its first hearing was conducted on 19.01.2016. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. Annexure-1 to the writ petition suggests that the respondent No.3 sought information from the Public Information Officer-cum-District Engineer, Zila Parishad, Gumla (wrongly mentioned as Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Gumla) on 05.08.2014. The petitioner has specifically stated in paragraph 4 of the writ petition that he was appointed as the Assistant Engineer in the year 1998 and was posted as the District Engineer at Zila Parishad, Gumla in the month of July, 2017. Since the said post was notified as the Public Information Officer of Zila Parishad, Gumla, the petitioner thereafter assumed the duty of the Public Information Officer as well. 8. Section 6(1) of the Act, 2005 provides that a person, who desires to obtain any information under the said Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi or in the official language of the area in which the application is being made, accompanying such fee as may be prescribed to the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, of the concerned public authority specifying the particulars of the information sought by him or her. 9. 9. Section 7(1) provides disposal of such request, according to which, subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 5 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under Section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in Sections 8 & 9. 10. On conjoint reading of Section 6(1) as well as Section 7(1) of the Act, 2005, it would emerge that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer has to provide the information within 30 days of receipt of such application or to reject the said request for cogent reasons i.e. the reasons specified under Sections 8 & 9 of the said Act. 11. Since the respondent No.3 sought information from the Public Information Officer of Zila Parishad, Gumla on 05.08.2014, the officer who was holding the post of the District Engineer-cum-Public Information Officer during the relevant time, was under obligation to provide information to the petitioner as mandated under Section 7(1) of the Act, 2005. The representative of the Public Information Officer had appeared before the Commission on 20.06.2016 and had submitted that the required information had already been sent to the appellant (the respondent No.3 herein). So far as the petitioner is concerned, he assumed the charge of the said post in the month of July, 2017 and before that the respondent No.3 had already preferred second appeal being Appeal Case No. 1994/2015 before the Commission. The petitioner however appeared on few dates before the Commission. 12. On bare perusal of the impugned order dated 07.06.2019, it appears that though the petitioner was called upon to show cause under Sections 20(1) & 20(2) of the Act, 2005, however, he did not file any reply to the same, rather requested for time on the ground that the dealing assistant was on leave and on the said date, he submitted before the Commission that the required information was being searched. The Commission did not accept the said submission of the petitioner since in course of hearing on 20.06.2016, the Public Information Officer had claimed that the information was already sent to the respondent No.3. The Commission held that the petitioner was knowingly not providing the information for which the second appeal was filed in the year 2015. 13. The moot question arises for consideration in this case is as to whether in the given situation, the Information Commissioner could have imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner and could have directed his controlling authority to initiate departmental proceeding against him within the bounds of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, 2005. 14. For better appreciation of the said aspect, it would be appropriate to quote Section 20 of the Act, 2005 which reads as under: “20. Penalties.—(1) Where the Central Information Commission or 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 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.” 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 Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in (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. 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. In the case of Chief Information Commissioner & Anr. Vs. State of Manipur & Anr. reported in (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. 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. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned order dated 07.06.2019 passed by the State Information Commission (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) in Appeal Case No. 1994/2015 cannot be sustained in law and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. 22. The present writ petition is accordingly allowed. 23. Consequently, I.A. No. 347/2020 also stands disposed of.