Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 614 (JHR)

Ravindra Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2024-06-24

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2024
ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 24.02.2020 as contained in memo no. 3218 dated 02.03.2020 (Annexure-16 to the writ petition) passed by the Acting Chief Information Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi (the respondent no. 2) in Appeal Case No. 2170 of 2012, whereby the said respondent recommended for initiation of departmental/disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner under Section 20(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2005”). 2. Reference is made to order dated 11.06.2024, which reads as under: “1. It has been reported by the office that pursuant to the order dated 8th September, 2022, the notice issued to the respondent no. 3 through ordinary process has been received by him. 2. The service of notice upon the said respondent is thus complete. 3. No one appears on behalf of respondent no. 3. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent no. 2 for a while. 5. Before proceeding further in the matter, the petitioner is directed to file supplementary affidavit within one week disclosing his places of posting and the period thereof with effect from 22nd May, 2012, i.e. the date of application filed by the respondent no. 3 under Right to Information Act, 2005 in the office of the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Ranchi Division (Rural) till the date of passing of the impugned order dated 24th February, 2020 by the Jharkhand State Information Commission in Appeal No. 2170 of 2012. 6. Put up this case under the heading “For Admission (Fixed Cases)” on 24th June, 2024.” 3. Pursuant to the said order, a supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner on 15.06.2024 giving the details of his places of posting during the aforesaid period, the relevant paragraphs of which read as under: “3. That the petitioner further states that by notification dated 23.10.2009 at Para No. 5, the petitioner was being posted as Asstt. Engineer, State Highway Authority in N.H. Road Circle, Dhanbad which is quite clear from the notification of Road Construction Department dated 23.10.2009. 4. That it is further stated that he remained there for a long period of 7 years and after that the Government of Jharkhand by notification dated 07.01.2016 transferred the petitioner from the post of Asstt. Engineer, N.H. Road Circle, Dhanbad to the Asstt. 4. That it is further stated that he remained there for a long period of 7 years and after that the Government of Jharkhand by notification dated 07.01.2016 transferred the petitioner from the post of Asstt. Engineer, N.H. Road Circle, Dhanbad to the Asstt. Engineer, Road Lower Division-2, Ramgarh which is quite clear from Para-137 of above-mentioned notification. 5. That the petitioner states that from the office order of Supdt. Engineer, National Highway Circle, Dhanbad, it appears that the petitioner was again released from Dhanbad Circle and allowed to join the newly posted assignment of Asstt. Engineer, State Highway, Ramgarh. 6. That the petitioner further states that from the notification dated 12.06.2018, it appears that the petitioner was posted as Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Lohardaga. 7. That the petitioner officiated there as an Executive Engineer till 07.08.2023 and again on the same very date, the petitioner was again transferred to Executive Engineer, Urban Development and Housing Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi, and after that the petitioner now officiating as Executive Engineer, Housing Board, Hazaribagh.” 4. Admittedly, the respondent no. 3 made an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 22.05.2012 before the Public Information Officer, Office of the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Ranchi (Rural). At that time, the petitioner was posted as Asstt. Engineer, State Highway Authority in N.H. Road Circle, Dhanbad. 5. Pursuant to filing of the said application by the respondent no. 3 on 22.05.2012, the Public Information Officer, Office of the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Ranchi (Rural) was under the statutory duty either to provide the required information to the respondent no. 3 or to reject the request for any of the reasons specified in Sections 8 and 9 of the Act, 2005 within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said request. 6. Alternatively, if the said information (pertaining to the year 2012) was related to the Road Division, Lohardaga, the Public Information Officer of the office of the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Ranchi (Rural) should have sought assistance from the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Lohardaga within the said period of 30 days. 6. Alternatively, if the said information (pertaining to the year 2012) was related to the Road Division, Lohardaga, the Public Information Officer of the office of the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Ranchi (Rural) should have sought assistance from the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Lohardaga within the said period of 30 days. If that was done, the concerned officer of the office of the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Lohardaga could have been said to be the deemed Public Information Officer for the purpose of providing information to the respondent no. 3. 7. Since the Public Information Officer of the office of the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Ranchi (Rural) did not take any step within the time prescribed under Section 7(1) of the Act, 2005, there is no question of the concerned officer of the office of the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Lohardaga to be the deemed Public Information Officer. Even during that time, the petitioner was posted as the Asstt. Engineer, State Highway Authority in N.H. Road Circle, Dhanbad. 8. It further appears that the Public Information Officer of the Road Construction Department, Road Division, Ranchi (Rural) did not provide the required information to the respondent no. 3 which led to filing of Appeal Case No. 2170 of 2012 in the Jharkhand State Information Commission. 9. The original record of the said case, as produced by Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, suggests that the said appeal was placed before the State Information Commission on 09.10.2013 and thereafter, the appeal was taken up on different dates. 10. On 08.06.2017, the Public Information Officer-cum-Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Ranchi (Rural) appeared before the Commission and submitted that since the application of the respondent no. 3 under the Act, 2005 pertained to the year 2012 and he wanted to inspect the road which at the relevant period fell under Lohardaga Division, the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Lohardaga should be made the deemed Public Information Officer. 11. On the said request, the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Lohardaga was nominated as deemed Public Information Officer with a direction to him to put forth his case on the next date. 12. 11. On the said request, the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Lohardaga was nominated as deemed Public Information Officer with a direction to him to put forth his case on the next date. 12. Here, it is important to note that on 08.06.2017 also, the petitioner was not posted as Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Lohardaga, rather he was posted as Assistant Engineer, Road Lower Division No. 2, Ramgarh. Hence, the petitioner could not have been said to be the deemed Public Information Officer with respect to the information sought by the respondent no. 3, rather the officer who was posted as the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Lohardaga on 08.06.2017 was the deemed Public Information Officer so as to provide the required information to the respondent no. 3 before the Commission. 13. Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, at this stage, submits that since the petitioner was posted as Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Lohardaga pursuant to the notification dated 12.06.2018, the State Information Commission rightly passed the impugned order dated 24.02.2020 as he being the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Lohardaga did not appear before the Commission despite repeated directions as would be evident from the orders dated 19.09.2018 and 18.06.2019. 14. As against this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said orders were not served to the petitioner and as such, he was not aware about the pendency of the said appeal before the State Information Commission and also his role as deemed Public Information Officer in the same. 15. In view of the aforesaid factual submissions made on behalf of the parties, it would appear that the petitioner was not the deemed Public Information Officer on 08.06.2017 as he was not posted as Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Lohardaga on the said date. Though subsequently, the petitioner was posted as Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Lohardaga in terms with notification dated 12.06.2018, his contention is that the subsequent orders passed by the State Information Commission were not served to him. 16. Though subsequently, the petitioner was posted as Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Lohardaga in terms with notification dated 12.06.2018, his contention is that the subsequent orders passed by the State Information Commission were not served to him. 16. On perusal of the original record of Appeal Case No. 2170 of 2012, it appears that copies of the orders dated 19.09.2018 and 18.06.2019 were directed to be issued to the Public Information Officer-cum-Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Ranchi (Rural), deemed Public Information Officer-cum-Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Lohardaga as well as to the advocate of the respondent no. 3, however, the same does not suggest that both the aforesaid orders were duly served to the petitioner. 17. Under the said circumstance, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 24.02.2020 passed by the respondent no. 2, whereby it recommended for initiation of the departmental/disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner under Section 20(2) of the Act, 2005, cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the order dated 24.02.2020 passed by the respondent no. 2 in Appeal Case No. 2170 of 2012 is quashed and set-aside. 18. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.