ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20th May, 2016 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) passed by the Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi in Appeal Case no.2847 of 2015, whereby the learned Commission has recommended for initiation of departmental proceeding against the petitioner in terms with Section 20(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act, 2005’) with an observation that if legible information was not made available to the respondent no.4, an order of penalty in terms with Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005 would be passed against the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application of the respondent no.4 seeking information under the Act, 2005 was received on 16th June, 2015 in the office of the petitioner, who happened to be the Circle Officer, Lohardaga-cum-Public Information Officer. The petitioner promptly furnished information to the respondent no.4 vide letter no.613 dated 14th July, 2015 through registered post on 15th July, 2015, however, the respondent no.4 claiming that the said information provided to him was not legible filed first appeal and thereafter second appeal before the Jharkhand State Information Commission being Appeal Case no.2847 of 2015. The petitioner received notice issued by the Commission vide letter no.23266 dated 29th December, 2015, wherein it was mentioned that the next date of Appeal Case no.2847 of 2015 was fixed on 1st March, 2016. It was also mentioned in the said letter/notice that the petitioner should ensure furnishing information to the respondent no.4 through speed post/registered post and a copy of the same as well as entire record of the first appellate authority along with explanation should be produced before the Commission on the said date. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after receiving the notice issued by learned Commission, the petitioner again sent information to the respondent no.4 vide letter no.90 dated 27th January, 2016. The respondent no.4 after filing of the second appeal before the Commission again submitted an application before the petitioner on 4th February, 2016 stating that he had sought eight information, but only five information had been provided to him, which were not correct and legible. According to the petitioner, information no.8 sought by the respondent no.4 vide his application dated 4th February, 2016 was a new one. 4. According to the petitioner, information no.8 sought by the respondent no.4 vide his application dated 4th February, 2016 was a new one. 4. It is also submitted that the petitioner met with an accident on 28th February, 2016 and he was admitted in a hospital on 29th February, 2016 for surgery of his left elbow. Under the said circumstance, the petitioner could not appear before the Commission on 1st March, 2016. Learned Commission, however, vide order dated 1st March, 2016 provided last opportunity to the petitioner to furnish all legible information to the respondent no.4 and to comply all the orders of the Commission failing which it would be compelled to take action under Sections 20(1) and 20(2) of the Act, 2005. Thereafter, the case was adjourned for 20th May, 2016. 5. It is further submitted that on 20th May, 2016 i.e. next date in Appeal Case no.2847 of 2015, there was “Sankh Mahotsaw” in Lohardaga and several dignitaries of the State were scheduled to visit the said place in which the petitioner was busy in maintaining law and order and due to the said reason, he could not appear before the Commission on 20th May, 2016. Learned Commission, however, vide order dated 20th May, 2016 made serious observation against the petitioner that he was deliberately not complying its orders and, accordingly, recommended for initiation of departmental proceeding against him by exercising power under Section 20(2) of the Act, 2005. Though the petitioner could not appear before the Commission on 1st March, 2016 and 20th May, 2016, he again provided legible information to the respondent no.4 by sending the same through peon. The said information was received by the respondent no.4 on 23rd May, 2016 and to that effect an acknowledgement was given by him on 2nd June, 2016 (a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition). 6. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though in fourth paragraph of the impugned order dated 20th May, 2016, learned Commission has made recommendation for initiation of departmental proceeding against the petitioner, however in last few lines of the said paragraph the concerned authority of the State has been directed to initiate departmental proceeding against him and to inform the said fact to the Commission on the next date i.e. 21st October, 2016. It has also been mentioned in the said order that if complete legible information is not provided to the respondent no.4 before the next date, a penalty of Rs.25,000/- will be imposed against the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instruction, submits that thereafter, no effective order has been passed against the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005 imposing penalty against him and, therefore, the petitioner has primarily challenged the part of the order dated 20th May, 2016 whereby a direction has been issued by the Commission to the concerned authority of the State to initiate departmental proceeding against him and to inform the said fact to it before the next date fixed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner puts reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Manohar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported in (2012)13 SCC 14 . Paragraph nos.22, 23, 29 and 31 of which read as under:- “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 officer concerned. 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). 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). 29. From the above dissected language of the provision, it is clear that first of all an opinion has to be formed by the Commission. This opinion is to be formed at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal after hearing the person concerned. The opinion formed has to have basis or reasons and must be relatable to any of the defaults of the provision. It is a penal provision as it vests the delinquent with civil consequences of initiation of and/or even punishment in disciplinary proceedings. The grounds stated in the section are exhaustive and it is not for the Commission to add other grounds which are not specifically stated in the language of Section 20(2). The section deals with two different proceedings. Firstly, the appeal or complaint filed before the Commission is to be decided and, secondly, if the Commission forms such opinion, as contemplated under the provisions, then it can recommend that disciplinary proceedings be taken against the said delinquent Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer. The purpose of the legislation in requiring both these proceedings to be taken together is obvious not only from the language of the section but even by applying the mischief rule wherein the provision is examined from the very purpose for which the provision has been enacted. While deciding the complaint or the appeal, if the Commission finds that the appeal is without merit or the complaint is without substance, the information need not be furnished for reasons to be recorded. If such be the decision, the question of recommending disciplinary action under Section 20(2) may not arise. While deciding the complaint or the appeal, if the Commission finds that the appeal is without merit or the complaint is without substance, the information need not be furnished for reasons to be recorded. If such be the decision, the question of recommending disciplinary action under Section 20(2) may not arise. Still, there may be another situation that upon perusing the records of the appeal or the complaint, the Commission may be of the opinion that none of the defaults contemplated under Section 20(2) is satisfied and, therefore, no action is called for. To put it simply, the Central or the State Commission have no jurisdiction to add to the exhaustive grounds of default mentioned in the provisions of Section 20(2). The case of default must strictly fall within the specified grounds of the provisions of Section 20(2). This provision has to be construed and applied strictly. Its ambit cannot be permitted to be enlarged at the whims of the Commission. 31. It appears that the facts have not been correctly noticed and, in any case, not in their entirety by the State Information Commission. It had formed an opinion that the appellant was negligent and had not performed the duty cast upon him. The Commission noticed that there was 73 days' delay in informing the applicant and, thus, there was negligence while performing duties. If one examines the provisions of Section 20(2) in their entirety then it becomes obvious that every default on the part of the officer concerned may not result in issuance of a recommendation for disciplinary action. The case must fall in any of the specified defaults and reasoned finding has to be recorded by the Commission while making such recommendations. “Negligence” per se is not a ground on which proceedings under Section 20(2) of the Act can be invoked. The Commission must return a finding that such negligence, delay or default is persistent and without reasonable cause. In our considered view, the Commission, in the present case, has erred in not recording such definite finding. “Negligence” per se is not a ground on which proceedings under Section 20(2) of the Act can be invoked. The Commission must return a finding that such negligence, delay or default is persistent and without reasonable cause. In our considered view, the Commission, in the present case, has erred in not recording such definite finding. The appellant herein had not failed to receive any application, had not failed to act within the period of 30 days (as he had written a letter calling for information), had not mala fide denied the request for information, had not furnished any incorrect or misleading information, had not destroyed any information and had not obstructed the furnishing of the information. On the contrary, he had taken steps to facilitate the providing of information by writing the stated letters. May be the letter dated 11-4-2007 was not written within the period of 30 days requiring Respondent 2 to furnish details of the period for which such information was required but the fact remained that such letter was written and Respondent 2 did not even bother to respond to the said enquiry. He just kept on filing appeal after appeal. After 4-4-2007, the date when the appellant was transferred to Akola, he was not responsible for the acts of omissions and/or commission of the office at Nanded.” 9. It has specifically been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment that the principles of natural justice have to be read into the provisions of Section 20(2) of the Act, 2005, as it is settled proposition of civil jurisprudence including service jurisprudence that no person should be condemned unheard. The recommendation for initiation of disciplinary action against a person has a far reaching civil consequence and, therefore, there has to be compliance of the principles of natural justice while making such a recommendation. 10. Here, in the present case, though in one part of the impugned order dated 20th May, 2016, the learned Commission has recommended for initiation of departmental proceeding against the petitioner, however in the other part, it has directed the concerned authority of the State to initiate a departmental proceeding against him and to inform the Commission on the next date regarding the said action. Such an order passed by the Commission is wholly arbitrary and illegal, as the petitioner has already explained the circumstance for his non-appearance before the Commission on 1st March, 2016, as he had met with an accident on 28th February, 2016 and was admitted in a hospital. On the next date i.e. on 20th May, 2016 he being a government servant was under law and order duty in Lohardaga. 11. No one appears on behalf of the respondent no.4 despite valid service of notice upon him. No counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondent no.4 denying and disputing the averments made in the writ petition. 12. Mr. Kishore Kumar Singh, learned S.C.V appearing on behalf of the respondent-State justifies the impugned order dated 20th May, 2016 passed by the Commission and submits that the petitioner failed to provide complete legible information as was directed by the Commission on earlier date. 13. On perusal of the impugned order dated 20th May, 2016 passed by the Commission, it appears that though in one part of the order the Commission has recommended for initiation of departmental proceeding against the petitioner exercising power under Section 20(2) of the Act, 2005, whereas in the other part of the order it has directed the Principal Secretary/Secretary, Department of Land Revenue and Registration, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi/ Principal Secretary/Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi/Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner and to inform the said fact to the Commission on the next date i.e. on 21st October, 2016. 14. For better appreciation of the case, it would be appropriate to quote Section 20 of the Act, 2005, which reads as under:- “20. 14. For better appreciation of the case, 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 subsection (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. Section 20 of the Act, 2005 is undoubtedly a harsh provision and, therefore, 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 time specified without any reasonable cause. There must be an objective consideration by the Commission on the basis of relevant materials on which such conclusion is drawn. 16. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manohar (Supra.) that 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). The grounds stated in Section 20(2) of the Act, 2005 are exhaustive and it is not for the Commission to add other grounds which are not specifically stated in the language of the said section. The Commission has no jurisdiction to add to exhaustive grounds of default mentioned in the provisions of Section 20(2) of the said Act. The case of default must strictly fall within the specified grounds of the provisions of Section 20(2). This provision has to be construed and applied strictly. Its ambit cannot be permitted to be enlarged at the whims of the Commission. On examination of the provisions of Section 20(2) of the Act, 2005 in their entirety, it becomes obvious that every default on the part of the officer concerned may not result in issuance of a recommendation for disciplinary action. The case must fall in any of the specified defaults and reasoned finding has to be recorded by the Commission while making such recommendations. “Negligence” per se is not a ground on which proceedings under Section 20(2) of the said Act can be invoked. 17. The petitioner has specifically asserted in the writ petition that he could not appear before the Commission on two dates i.e. on 1st March, 2016 and 20th May, 2016 due to the aforesaid reasons. “Negligence” per se is not a ground on which proceedings under Section 20(2) of the said Act can be invoked. 17. The petitioner has specifically asserted in the writ petition that he could not appear before the Commission on two dates i.e. on 1st March, 2016 and 20th May, 2016 due to the aforesaid reasons. The fact regarding providing of complete legible information to the respondent no.4 on 23rd May, 2016 for which receipt was also issued by him on 2nd June, 2016 has not been disputed by the respondent no.4 by filing counter affidavit. Therefore, treating the said reasons assigned by the petitioner for his non-appearance on the said two dates before the Commission is considered to be true. Otherwise also as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manohar (Supra.), the Commission has the power only to make recommendation for initiation of departmental proceeding against public information officer for violating all the conditions as mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, 2005 not to direct the authorities to initiate the same. 18. In the present case, the Commission vide impugned order dated 20th May, 2016 has, in fact, directed the competent authority of the State to initiate a proceeding against the petitioner and to inform the said fact on the next date. Learned Commission has, therefore exceeded its jurisdiction in giving such a direction. The impugned order dated 20th May, 2016 also does not suggest that sufficient material was available before the Commission to form an opinion regarding persistent negligence or delay or default on the part of the petitioner so as to invoke the provision of Section 20(2) of the Act, 2005. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussions, part of the impugned order dated 20th May, 2016, whereby the concerned authority of the State has been directed to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner and to inform the Commission about that, cannot be sustained in law and, therefore, the same is quashed. 20. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.