JUDGMENT : (M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) 1. The petitioner is a Judicial Officer (Under Suspension). 2. The petitioner made an application under Right to Information Act, 2005, before the Judge Incharge Cum State Public Information Officer, Civil Court, Giridih seeking information with regard to the following aspects: 1. T.A. and Disturbance Allowance Bill Petition dt. 1.1.2018. 2. T.A. Bill Petition dt. 5.4.2019. 3. Newspaper and Magazine Bill Reimbursement Petition dt. 4.12.2018. 4. Pool Car or Fuel Bill Payment Petition dt. 18.2.2019. 5. Medical Bill Payment Petition dt. 31.1.2020. 6. Medical Bill Payment Attestation Petition dt. 20.09.2019. 7. T.A. and D.A. Bill Payment Petition dt. 19.2.2020. 8. Attendance Register Opening Date relating to Suspended Officer. (The name of authority satisfy said of attendance register.) 9. No. of days of each month in which subsistence allowance was paid to the petitioner from year 2018 to 2020. 3. A response thereto was given on 21.04.2020 by the said authority. In the said reply, it has been stated as follows: 1. In respect to query no.1 as per T.A. Rule, it is not mentioned anywhere in the T.A. Rule that T.A. and D.A. will be admissible during the period of suspension of officer or employee. 2. In respect to query no.2 as per T.A. Rule, it is not mentioned anywhere in the T.A. Rule that T.A. and D.A. will be admissible during the period of suspension of officer or employee. 3. In respect to query no.3. It is clear in Rule 96 of Jharkhand Service Code that only subsistence allowance is permitted to officer or employee during suspension period. During suspension period of officer or employee, it is not mentioned anywhere in Service Code as well as any letter issued by the State Government that allowance regarding newspaper and Magazine will be admissible. 4. In respect to query no.4. There is no any provision in Service Code as well as letter issued by the State Government to grant reimbursement bill of fuel and provision of pool car during suspension of officer or employee. 5. In respect to query no.5 and 6. It is clear that, information regarding query no.5 and 6 has already been provided vide letter no.29A dated 17.3.2020. 6. In respect to query no.7. 5. In respect to query no.5 and 6. It is clear that, information regarding query no.5 and 6 has already been provided vide letter no.29A dated 17.3.2020. 6. In respect to query no.7. As per T.A. Rule, it is not mentioned anywhere in the T.A. Rule that T.A. and D.A. will be admissible during the period of suspension of officer or employee. 7. In respect to query no.1 and 2. It is evident that being an officer you are regularly putting your signature on attendance register just after transfer (as headquarter in Giridih Judgeship under suspension) and it is in your good knowledge. Hence, there is no requirement to provide further information regarding attendance register as well as signature of officer. 8. In respect to query no.3. It is clear that, statement regarding subsistence allowance is on line available in the site of employee portal KUBER. Hence it is not required to provide further. 4. Aggrieved thereby, he filed an appeal being R.T.I. Appeal No.02/2020 before the District & Additional Sessions Judge-1 Cum First Appellate Authority, Giridih. 5. The First Appellate Authority passed an order on 21.07.2020 holding that the information sought by the petitioner was neither allowed nor rejected, and that the same was not in conformity with Section 7 of the R.T.I. Act. He therefore allowed the appeal, and remitted the matter back to the Judge Incharge Cum State Public Information Officer, Civil Court, Giridih for doing the needful. 6. Thereafter, on 27.07.2020, the Judge Incharge Cum State Public Information Officer, Civil Court, Giridih again passed an order stating that all the information required by the petitioner had already been furnished on 21.04.2020 and there was no need to furnish further information. 7. Thereafter, petitioner again filed an application on 23.09.2020 before the First Appellate Authority to initiate disciplinary action against the Judge Incharge Cum State Public Information Officer, Civil Court, Giridih alleging that he had committed misconduct and to communicate to the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Giridih, to enter the alleged misconduct in the A.C.R. of the said Officer. It was registered as a R.T.I. Misc. Case No.01/2020 dt. 05.10.2020. 8. By an order dated 13.12.2021, the same was dismissed by the District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Civil Court, Giridih Cum First Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act. It was registered as a R.T.I. Misc. Case No.01/2020 dt. 05.10.2020. 8. By an order dated 13.12.2021, the same was dismissed by the District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Civil Court, Giridih Cum First Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act. In the said order, the First Appellate Authority referred to the events which transpired before such appeal was filed before him, and opined that under the provisions of Right to Information Act,2005 proceedings cannot be initiated to punish a Judicial Officer who is the State Public Information Officer, Giridih; that the Appellate Authority is not conducting enquiry at the direction of Disciplinary Authority such as the High Court; and he cannot be compelled to conduct any disciplinary enquiry against the Judge Incharge Cum State Public Information Officer, Civil Court, Giridih under the relevant rules of the Bihar Government Servant’s Conduct Rules, 1976. 9. Assailing the same, this writ petition is filed. 10. Heard the counsel for the petitioner. 11. The queries raised by the petitioner in the RTI Application relate to entitlement of the petitioner to get T.A. and other allowances during the period of his suspension. 12. We do not see any reason why such information is being sought by the petitioner before the State Public Information Officer, Civil Court, Giridih. 13. The Service Rules governing the payment of such allowances ought to be well known to the petitioner. If he is really entitled to the said benefit, he can quote the appropriate rules and claim the said benefit by approaching this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. Thus the filing of such application under the Right to Information Act,2005 by petitioner is an abuse of provisions of the said law. 14. The whole purpose of seeking such information appears to be for harassing Judge Incharge Cum State Public Information Officer, Civil Court, Giridih , and somehow or other secure an order directing disciplinary action against the said Officer by hook or by crook. 15. The petitioner cannot be permitted to abuse provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to wreak vengeance against the said Officer in this manner. 16. The impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority indicates that the Appellate Authority under the RTI Act has no power to direct disciplinary action against the Special Public Information Officer Cum Judge Incharge, Civil Court, Giridih. 16. The impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority indicates that the Appellate Authority under the RTI Act has no power to direct disciplinary action against the Special Public Information Officer Cum Judge Incharge, Civil Court, Giridih. Only this Court can initiate such action if there is a case made out for the said purpose. We see no error in the said order. 17. Therefore, the Writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the High Court Legal Services Committee, Ranchi, within eight weeks.