JUDGMENT : (Rajesh Shankar, J.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 26.02.2015 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) passed by the Acting Chief Information Commissioner, Ranchi (the respondent no. 1) in second appeal being Appeal no. 2860 of 2011 preferred by the respondent no. 2 which was communicated to the petitioner vide memo no. 4559 dated 14.05.2015 issued under the signature of Under Secretary, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi, whereby penalty of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed upon him under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short, “the Act, 2005”) to be deducted from his salary in five equal monthly instalments w.e.f. March, 2015. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Sanjeev Kumar Khandelwal (the respondent no. 2) had sought certain information from the Public Information Officer-cum-Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Giridih vide his application dated 04.08.2011 which was not provided to him within statutory period for which he preferred first appeal before the Deputy Commissioner-cum-First Appellate Authority, Giridih vide his application dated 10.09.2011. Thereafter, the required information not having been furnished, the respondent no. 2 preferred second appeal before the Chief Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi on 30.10.2011 which was registered as Appeal No. 2860 of 2011. Subsequently, a notice was issued to the then Public Information Officer-cum- Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Giridih vide letter no. 2310 dated 10.03.2012. 3. It is further submitted that the petitioner had taken charge of Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Giridih on 12.07.2013 and he came to know about the pendency of the second appeal before the respondent no. 1 for the first time on 20.11.2013 when the order dated 04.11.2013 as contained in memo no. 9282 dated 13.11.2013 was communicated to him. 4. It is also submitted that though the required information was already provided to the respondent no. 2 by the then Public Information Officer-cum-Executive Officer, Giridih Nagar Parishad, Giridih vide letter no. 343 dated 13.01.2012, however the petitioner once again forwarded the said letter to the respondent no.2 in the light of direction passed by the respondent no. 1 vide order as contained in memo no. 7789 dated 11.09.2014 which was communicated by the petitioner to the Under Secretary In-charge, State Information Commission, vide letter no. 7703 dated 09.10.2014. 343 dated 13.01.2012, however the petitioner once again forwarded the said letter to the respondent no.2 in the light of direction passed by the respondent no. 1 vide order as contained in memo no. 7789 dated 11.09.2014 which was communicated by the petitioner to the Under Secretary In-charge, State Information Commission, vide letter no. 7703 dated 09.10.2014. The petitioner, vide letter no.292 dated 18.02.2015, once again provided the copy of entire information to the respondent no.2 which was earlier provided to him vide letter no. 343 dated 13.01.2012 and the same was intimated to the Under Secretary, State Information Commission, Ranchi, vide letter no. 296 dated 19.02.2015. Despite that, the respondent no. 1, vide impugned order dated 26.02.2015, imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000/- upon the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005 directing that the same would be deducted from his salary in five equal monthly instalments w.e.f. March, 2015 on account of delay committed in providing information to the respondent no. 2. It was also observed in the said order that the petitioner was directed to file show cause reply regarding delay caused in providing the required information to the respondent no. 2 which was not submitted by him and his said act reflected that he was not serious in compliance of the order passed by the respondent no. 1. 5. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had taken charge of Public Information Officer only on 12.07.2013 and as such he cannot be held liable for the penalty imposed under section 20(1) of the Act, 2005. 6. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 submits that the said respondent has rightly imposed the aforesaid penalty upon the petitioner as in spite of specific direction, he failed to provide complete information to the respondent no. 2. Moreover, he did not file any reply to the show cause notice issued to him for the delay committed in providing information to the respondent no. 2. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. The thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner cannot be held liable for any delay caused in providing information to the respondent no. 2 as he had taken charge as Public Information Officer on 12.07.2013. 2. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. The thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner cannot be held liable for any delay caused in providing information to the respondent no. 2 as he had taken charge as Public Information Officer on 12.07.2013. It has further been contended that if any delay was committed in providing the required information to the respondent no. 2, the then Public Information Officer should only be held responsible for the same. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner puts reliance on a judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Tarni Prasad Mukhia versus The Jharkhand State Information Commission, through its Secretary and Others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 1132 wherein the petitioner of the said case had joined the post of Public Information Officer subsequent to the filing of application under the Act, 2005. This Court while quashing the order passed under section 20(1) and 20(2) of the Act, 2005, has interpreted sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, 2005 and has observed that Section 20 of the Act, 2005 should 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. It has further been held that 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. In the said case, this Court has also referred the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Manohar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Another reported in (2012) 13 SCC 14 wherein it has been held that 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 and thus, the provisions relating to penalty or to penal consequences have to be construed strictly. Exercise of such power is bound to adversely affect or bring civil consequences to the delinquent and thus, the provisions relating to penalty or to penal consequences have to be construed strictly. It is not open to the Court to give them such liberal construction which would be beyond the specific language of the statute or would be in violation of the principles of natural justice. This Court has also referred the case of Chief Information Commissioner & Another Vs. State of Manipur & Another reported in (2011) 15 SCC 1 , in which 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 bonafide. 10. I have also gone through the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, 2005 which read 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." 11. Thus, there are four conditions under which the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission may impose penalty and recommend to initiate departmental proceeding against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, if the said officer has: - (i) refused to receive an application for information or (ii) not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section(1) of Section 7 of the Act, 2005 or (iii) malafidely denied the request for information or (iv) 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. 12. In the present case, the petitioner was not the Public Information Officer at the time of filing of application by the respondent no. 2 under the Act, 2005, rather he had joined as a Public Information Officer on 12.07.2013 during pendency of the appeal before the respondent no. 1 and as such none of the ingredients for imposing penalty against the petitioner under sub- section (1) of Section 20 of the Act, 2005 has been fulfilled in the present case. If the delay was caused in not furnishing information to the respondent no. 2, the officer, who was functioning as Public Information Officer at the time of filing of the application under the Act, 2005 by the respondent no. 2, could have been held liable for any penalty under sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act, 2005. If the delay was caused in not furnishing information to the respondent no. 2, the officer, who was functioning as Public Information Officer at the time of filing of the application under the Act, 2005 by the respondent no. 2, could have been held liable for any penalty under sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act, 2005. The liability under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 20 of the Act, 2005 cannot be fastened on the person holding the post of Public Information Officer at the time of passing of the order by the Commission, rather the same can only be fastened on the person functioning as Public Information Officer who was actually responsible for not providing the information in time as stipulated under section 7(1) of the Act, 2005. Under the said circumstances, this Court is of the view that the respondent no. 1 while passing the impugned order imposing penalty of Rs. 25,000/- upon the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005, has transgressed the said provision. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 26.02.2015 passed by the respondent no. 1 in second appeal being Appeal no. 2860 of 2011 is quashed and set aside. 14. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.