JUDGMENT : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing order dated 10.03.2016 communicated to the petitioner vide memo no. 7200 dated 28.03.2016 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) passed by the Jharkhand State Information Commission in Appeal No. 623/2014, whereby a recommendation was made for initiation of departmental proceeding against the Public Information Officer, Nazarat Section, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh exercising power under Section 20(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2005”) with further direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh to initiate departmental proceeding against the said Public Information Officer and to submit the action taken against the said officer on the next date. Further prayer has been made for quashing order dated 09.06.2016 as contained in memo no. 14429 dated 27.06.2016 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition) passed by the Commission in the said appeal, whereby last opportunity was granted to the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh to initiate departmental proceeding against the concerned Public Information Officer of Nazarat Section, Hazaribagh and to inform the said fact to the Commission with further direction to the Principal Secretary/Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi to comply the order dated 10.03.2016 passed by the Commission and to submit the action take report. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner joined the post of Nazarat Deputy Collector, Hazaribagh on 28.02.2014 and since then, he functioned as the Public Information Officer of the said office till the impugned orders dated 10.03.2016 and 09.06.2016 were passed by the Commission. 3. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 2 had made an application dated 14.07.2012 to the Public Information Officer, Nazarat Section, Hazaribagh to provide certain information. When the information was not provided to the respondent no. 2, he preferred first appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh on 10.09.2013 and thereafter filed second appeal on 13.02.2014 before the Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi which was registered as Appeal No. 623/2014. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it has already been held by this Court in the case of “Tarni Prasad Mukhia Vs. 2, he preferred first appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh on 10.09.2013 and thereafter filed second appeal on 13.02.2014 before the Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi which was registered as Appeal No. 623/2014. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it has already been held by this Court in the case of “Tarni Prasad Mukhia Vs. The Jharkhand State Information Commission & Ors.” [W.P.(C) No. 4377 of 2019] that a subsequent Public Information Officer who was not involved in providing information to the information seeker under Section 7(1) of the Act, 2005, cannot be held responsible for non-furnishing of information in time and thereby not liable for imposition of penalty as well as initiation of departmental proceeding under the provisions of sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 20 of the Act, 2005 respectively. 5. In the present case, the petitioner was not the Public Information Officer of Nazarat Section, Office of the Deputy Collector, Hazaribagh on 14.07.2012 when certain information under the provisions of the Act, 2005 was sought by the respondent no. 2 from the said office. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Commission also failed to consider that the petitioner had already provided the required information to the respondent no. 2. In that regard, he had also sent letter no. 289 dated 28.04.2016 to the Authorized Officer of the Commission. The said letter contained three paragraphs and the fact of providing the required information to the respondent no. 2 was mentioned by the petitioner in first paragraph of the same. Moreover, in third paragraph of the said letter, the petitioner had further requested for dropping Appeal Nos. 3035/2014, 1284/2014 and 1824/2014 on the ground that similar request was made by the respondent no. 2 in those appeals as well. A copy of the said request was also annexed along with letter dated 28.04.2016. Despite the said fact, the Commission while passing the impugned order dated 09.06.2016 completely ignored the first paragraph of letter dated 28.04.2016 sent by the petitioner informing inter alia that the information was already provided to the respondent no. 2 on 07.04.2016, rather only took note of the third paragraph of the said letter and thereby observed that the petitioner had tried to mislead the Commission. 2 on 07.04.2016, rather only took note of the third paragraph of the said letter and thereby observed that the petitioner had tried to mislead the Commission. Since the impugned orders dated 10.03.2016 and 09.06.2016 have been passed by the Commission transgressing the law, the same are liable to be set aside. 7. Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1, while justifying the impugned orders dated 10.03.2016 and 09.06.2016, submits that both the orders passed by the Commission are justified and legal as despite repeated direction of the Commission to provide information to the respondent no. 2, the petitioner failed to comply the same. The Commission has also rightly recommended for initiation of departmental proceeding against the petitioner exercising power under Section 20(2) of the Act, 2005 with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh to submit the action taken report on subsequent date. 8. Though the notice issued to the respondent no. 2 was validly served to him, however, no one appears on behalf of the said respondent. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 10. The specific case of the petitioner is that he was not the Public Information Officer-cum-Nazarat Deputy Collector, Hazaribagh on 14.07.2012 i.e., the day the respondent no. 2 filed an application in the said office seeking certain information under the Act, 2005. The petitioner joined the post of Nazarat Deputy Collector, Hazaribagh on 28.02.2014 and he was the Public Information Officer of the said office at the time of passing of the impugned orders dated 10.03.2016 and 09.06.2016 (Annexure-10 and Annexure-15 respectively to the writ petition) by the Commission. Further case of the petitioner is that pursuant to order dated 10.03.2016, whereby the Commission had directed the Public Information Officer to provide all information to the respondent no. 2, failing which an order was to be passed under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005 by imposing penalty of Rs.25,000/-, the petitioner had provided all required information to the respondent no. 2 vide memo no. 257/Naza dated 07.04.2016 sent through speed post. The said fact was brought to the notice of the Commission by the petitioner vide letter no. 289 dated 28.04.2016 (a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition). 11. 2 vide memo no. 257/Naza dated 07.04.2016 sent through speed post. The said fact was brought to the notice of the Commission by the petitioner vide letter no. 289 dated 28.04.2016 (a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition). 11. On careful perusal of Annexure-13 as well as impugned order dated 09.06.2016 (Annexure-15) passed by the Commission, it appears that the Commission has completely ignored the fact mentioned in first paragraph of letter dated 28.04.2016 in which the petitioner had informed that the required information was already sent to the respondent no. 2 on 07.04.2016. Curiously enough, the Commission only took note of third paragraph of letter dated 28.04.2016 in which based on similar request of the respondent no. 2, the petitioner had also requested for closing of three other appeals i.e., Appeal Nos. 3035/2014, 1284/2014 and 1824/2014 filed by the said respondent. Thus, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 09.06.2016 being perverse in nature cannot be sustained in law. 12. So far as the impugned order dated 10.03.2016 is concerned, it appears that though in one part of the same, the Commission has made recommendation for initiation of departmental proceeding against the Public Information Officer-cum-Nazarat Deputy Collector, Hazaribagh exercising power under Section 20(2) of the Act, 2005, however, in the other part of the order, a direction was issued to the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh to initiate departmental proceeding against the Public Information Officer and to inform the said fact to the Commission on the next date. 13. It has already been held in catena of judgments that while exercising power under Section 20(2) of the Act, 2005, the Commission in given situation can only make recommendation for initiation of departmental proceeding against the concerned Public Information Officer and cannot issue a direction to the authority for the said purpose. 14. In a recent judgment rendered by this Court in the case of “Tarni Prasad Mukhia” (supra), it has been held that the Commission can impose penalty under Section 20(1) and make recommendation for initiation of departmental proceeding under Section 20(2) of the Act, 2005 only upon such Public Information Officer who had not furnished information within the time specified in Section 7(1) without any reasonable cause. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are quoted as under : 14. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are quoted as under : 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 6 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. 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 subsection (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. 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. 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. 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. 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.” 15. Similar view has been taken by this Court while rendering judgment dated 18.05.2023 in the case of “Sanjay Kumar” (supra), paragraph-20 of which reads as under: “20. In the case in hand, the facts available on record suggest that the respondent No.4 was also not acting as the Public Information Officer during the period when the application under the Act, 2005 was filed by the respondent No.3 and the statutory period of one month for providing information had elapsed. As such, to do the complete justice between the parties, I am of the view that the order dated 13.04.2017, though not challenged in the present writ petition, is also liable to be quashed.” 16. Coming back to the facts of the present case, on bare perusal of the impugned order dated 10.03.2016 passed by the Commission, it would appear that the Commission has not only made recommendation for initiation of departmental proceeding against the concerned Public Information Officer exercising power under Section 20(2) of the Act, 2005, but has also directed the concerned public authorities i.e., the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh to initiate departmental proceeding against the Public Information Officer and to inform the said fact to the Commission. 17. Otherwise also, admittedly, the petitioner was not the Public Information Officer on the day the application was made by the respondent no. 2 seeking information under the provisions of the said Act, i.e., on 14.07.2012. Hence, the petitioner cannot be said to be bound by rigours of Section 20(1) as well as Section 20(2) of the Act, 2005. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned orders dated 10.03.2016 and 09.06.2016 passed by the Commission are quashed and set aside. 19. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.