JUDGMENT : 1. Keeping in view the order dated 08.11.2019, let the Jharkhand State Information Commission, through its Secretary be impleaded as the respondent No.4 in the present writ petition. 2. Necessary insertion in the cause title of the present writ petition be made by the office. 3. Since Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate, has been appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4, there is no need to issue any notice to him. 4. Though Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.3, no one appears on behalf of the said respondent. 5. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.06.2018 passed by the Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’] in Appeal Case No. 2816/2015 and communicated to the petitioner vide memo No. 9040 dated 19.07.2018 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) whereby she has been 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’] with further direction to get the same deposited in the concerned district treasury in five equal monthly instalments of Rs.5,000/-. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 29.06.2018 passed by the Commission is arbitrary and unreasonable as the same has been passed in undue haste without considering that the petitioner had bonafide intention to supply the required information sought by the respondent No.3. Learned Commission also did not provide due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before imposing penalty of Rs.25,000/- under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005. 7. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel for the respondent No.4, while justifying the impugned order dated 29.06.2018, submits that in course of hearing of Appeal Case No. 2816/2015, it was found by the learned Commission that on 26.02.2016, the petitioner being the Public Information Officer of Deputy Commissioner Office, Dhanbad had wrongly submitted that the required information was already given to the respondent No.3. In fact, on 12.05.2016, the respondent No.3 had pointed out before the Commission that no such information was provided to him by the petitioner. In fact, on 12.05.2016, the respondent No.3 had pointed out before the Commission that no such information was provided to him by the petitioner. Moreover, vide order dated 28.09.2016, the petitioner was also directed to make available her written explanation as to why appropriate action under Sections 20(1) & 20(2) of the Act, 2005 be not taken against her for not providing the required information to the respondent No.3 for more than a year as well as for misleading the Commission. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. The order dated 26.02.2016 passed in Appeal Case No. 2816/2015 records the submission of the petitioner, who was present before the Commission in person, that the required information was sent to the appellant (the respondent No.3 herein). After recording the said submission, the respondent No.3 was directed to file objection, if any, against supplied information to the petitioner. The case was thereafter taken up on 12.05.2016 and on the said date, the respondent No.3 pointed out before the Commission that no information was provided to him by the petitioner. Considering the said submission, the Commission directed the Public Information Officer (the petitioner herein) to file her written explanation as to why an appropriate action under Section 20(2) of the Act, 2005 be not taken against her for giving wrong information to the Commission as well as for misleading it. The case was thereafter taken up on 28.09.2016 and on the said date, the same fact was reiterated by the Commission and the Public Information Officer was again directed to make available her written explanation as to why appropriate action be not taken under Sections 20(1) & 20(2) of the Act, 2005 for not providing the required information to the respondent No.3 for more than a year. 9. First proviso to Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005 specifies that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be provided reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed upon him. 10. 9. First proviso to Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005 specifies that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be provided reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed upon him. 10. On perusal of different orders passed by the Commission including the orders dated 12.05.2016 as well as 28.09.2016, it would be evident that the petitioner was asked to explain as to why an appropriate action under Sections 20(1) & 20(2) of the Act, 2005 be not taken against her and hence it cannot be said that the petitioner was not provided due opportunity of hearing before imposing penalty of Rs.25,000/- by the Commission. Thus, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 29.06.2018 passed by the Information Commissioner in Appeal Case No. 2816/2015 so as to interfere with the same. 11. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed.