JUDGMENT : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.04.2011 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) passed by the Jharkhand State Information Commission [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’] in Appeal No. 2028/2010 whereby a penalty of Rs.25,000/- under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2005’] was imposed upon the petitioner No.2 to be deducted from his salary in five equal monthly instalments, who at that time was holding the post of the Public Information Officer-cum-Deputy General Manager, Electric Supply Area, Ranchi. 2. The relevant facts emanating from the writ petition is that the respondent No.1 made an application under Section 6 of the Act, 2005 in the office of the Deputy General Manager-cum-Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle, Ranchi i.e. the Office of the Public Information Officer on 29.08.2009 seeking ten points information as mentioned therein. When the said information was not supplied to him within the stipulated period of 30 days, he filed first appeal on 08.10.2009 before the petitioner No.1 seeking desired information free of cost. According to the respondent No.1, certain informations were belatedly provided to him on 24.12.2009 that too those were misleading. Aggrieved therewith, he preferred second appeal before the Commission, which was registered as Appeal Case No. 2028/10 and was disposed of vide the impugned order dated 29.04.2011 imposing a penalty of Rs.25,000/- under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005 upon the petitioner No.2 to be deducted from his salary in five equal monthly instalments. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in fact, the information was provided to the respondent No.1 on 13.11.2009 as would be evident from the communication made by the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Electric Supply Area, Ranchi to the respondent No.1 vide letter No. 3410 dated 13.11.2009 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). Moreover, the said information was in due response to the queries made by the respondent No.1 and was proper having no ambiguity in the same. Hence, the objection raised by the respondent No.1 before the Commission contending that misleading informations were provided to him, was baseless. Moreover, the said information was in due response to the queries made by the respondent No.1 and was proper having no ambiguity in the same. Hence, the objection raised by the respondent No.1 before the Commission contending that misleading informations were provided to him, was baseless. Otherwise also, the learned Commission while passing the impugned order dated 29.04.2011, primarily considered the issue of not providing information by the petitioner No.2 on the objection raised by the respondent No.1 before it which does not come within the ambit of the conditions mentioned in Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005 so as to impose penalty upon the concerned Public Information Officer and thus the impugned order dated 29.04.2011 is bad in law. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the impugned order dated 29.04.2011 passed by the Commission in Appeal Case No. 2028/10 is perfectly justified as the concerned Public Information Officer i.e. the petitioner No.2 failed to provide desired information to the respondent No.1 within the statutory period, rather the information provided to him belatedly was also misleading. 5. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2, submits that the impugned order dated 29.04.2011 has been passed by the Commission in accordance with law and the same does not require any interference of this Court under its writ jurisdiction. It is further submitted that admittedly the concerned Public Information Officer i.e. the petitioner No.2 provided information to the respondent No.1 belatedly and hence he failed to comply the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act, 2005 and therefore he was liable for penalty under Section 20(1) of the said Act. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. The respondent No.1 filed an application on 29.08.2009 before the Deputy General Manager-cum-Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Area, Ranchi, who at that time was the Public Information Officer of the said office. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 preferred first appeal on 08.10.2009 before the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Electric Supply Area, Ranchi. The respondent No.1 filed an application on 29.08.2009 before the Deputy General Manager-cum-Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Area, Ranchi, who at that time was the Public Information Officer of the said office. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 preferred first appeal on 08.10.2009 before the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Electric Supply Area, Ranchi. During pendency of the first appeal, the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Electric Supply Area, Ranchi vide letter No. 3410 dated 13.11.2009, informed the respondent No.1 that pursuant to filing of his application on 29.08.2009, the Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Ranchi (Central) had asked the Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub-Division, Main Road, Ranchi vide letter No. 1804 dated 04.09.2009 to send point wise information as sought by the respondent No.1 whereupon the Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub-Division, Main Road, Ranchi had provided the same to the Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Ranchi (Central) vide letter No. 496 dated 18.09.2009 and a copy of the supplied information was forwarded by the Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Ranchi (Central) to the petitioner No.1 vide letter No. 2138 dated 31.10.2009 which was being communicated to the respondent No.1. 7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the information sought by the respondent No.1 was provided to him by the first appellate authority i.e. the petitioner No.1 vide his aforesaid letter dated 13.11.2009. A copy of letter No. 496 dated 18.09.2009 issued by the Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub-Division, Main Road, Ranchi to the Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Ranchi (Central) is part of Annexure-1 to the writ petition, which clearly suggests that the information sought by the respondent No.1 vide his application dated 29.08.2009 was properly supplied to him. 8. The main argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Commission while passing the impugned order dated 29.04.2011, wrongly entered into the issue of not properly providing information to the respondent No.1 pursuant to his objection filed before the Commission. 9. I find substance in the said contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners. Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005 does not confer power to the Commission to impose penalty upon the Public Information Officer on such ground. 9. I find substance in the said contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners. Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005 does not confer power to the Commission to impose penalty upon the Public Information Officer on such ground. Undoubtedly, the conduct of the Public Information Officer is to be considered by the Commission in the process of providing the information so as to form opinion with respect to imposing penalty upon him under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005, however, the said conduct is to be judged in the context of delay committed by the concerned Public Information Officer in providing information to the information seeker keeping in view the conditions mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 20. 10. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioners that though the information was provided to the respondent No.1 at the stage of pendency of the first appeal i.e. after some delay, yet the same was not misleading. 11. On the said issue, while perusing the impugned order dated 29.04.2011 passed by the Commission, it appears that though penalty was imposed upon the concerned Public Information Officer on the ground that the information was not provided to the respondent No.1 with respect to his objection raised before the Commission, yet it was not at all discussed as to what was that particular objection which had prompted the Commission to form opinion that the petitioner No.2 did not provide proper information to the respondent No.1 pursuant to his written objection filed before the Commission on 21.02.2011. The issue as to under which situation the Commission can impose a penalty upon the Public Information Officer or can recommend the controlling authority to initiate a proceeding against him/her within the bounds of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, 2005 respectively has been discussed by this Court in the judgment dated 15.05.2023 rendered in the case of Tarni Prasad Mukhia Vs. The Jharkhand State Information Commission, through its Secretary, Ranchi & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 4377/2019], the relevant paragraphs of which read as under: “13. The Jharkhand State Information Commission, through its Secretary, Ranchi & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 4377/2019], the relevant paragraphs of which read as under: “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. 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 an 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 of Section 20(1) are pari-materia to those in Section 20(2), except that the word ‘persistently’ has been mentioned in condition No.(i) of Section 20(2). 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. 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.” 12. Coming back to the present case. On perusal of the impugned order dated 29.04.2011 passed by the Commission in Appeal No. 2028/2010, it would be evident that instead of considering the requirements of Section 7(1) as well as Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005, the Commission misdirected itself and went into the aspect of not providing the information to the respondent No.1 on his objection raised at the stage of second appeal that too, without factually analysing the said objection viz. the information provided. 13. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 29.04.2011 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) passed by the Jharkhand State Information Commission in Appeal No. 2028/2010 cannot be sustained in law and the same is hereby quashed. 14. The present writ petition is accordingly allowed.