JUDGMENT : Rajesh Shankar, J. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 08.09.2014 as contained in memo no. 10478 dated 22.12.2014 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) issued under the signature of the respondent no. 3 – the Under Secretary, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi in Appeal Case No. 108 of 2011, whereby a sum of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed as penalty against the petitioner under the provision of Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2005”) and the same has been directed to be realized from his monthly salary @ Rs.5000/- per month with further direction to the department of the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the respondent no. 5 under the provision of Section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005 for not furnishing the information to him under the said Act. Further prayer has been made for quashing the letter as contained in memo no. 76/Ra. dated 16.04.2015 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition), whereby the respondent No. 4 has asked the petitioner to pay the aforesaid compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the respondent no. 5 out of his own earned resources. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was posted as Addl. Collector, Palamu-cum-Public Information Officer from 15.01.2014 to 01.09.2014 and during the said period, he received memo no. 2042 dated 06.03.2014 and memo no. 5400 dated 02.07.2014 issued under the signature of the In-charge Under Secretary, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi, wherefrom he came to know that one Rajnikant Pandey (the respondent no. 5) had filed an application under the Act, 2005 vide his application dated 13.09.2010 for obtaining certain information from the then Public Information Officer-cum-Addl. Collector, Palamu and an appeal filed by him being Appeal No. 108 of 2011 before the State Information Commission was pending for the information related to Sl. No. 3 of the application of the respondent no. 5. 3. It is further submitted that the petitioner having come to know about the pendency of the said appeal, immediately took all efforts to procure the same as the relevant files were missing. The petitioner appeared before the State Information Commission on 18.07.2014 and on the said date, the Information Commissioner, Ranchi granted two weeks’ time to the petitioner to disseminate Information to the appellant/respondent no. The petitioner appeared before the State Information Commission on 18.07.2014 and on the said date, the Information Commissioner, Ranchi granted two weeks’ time to the petitioner to disseminate Information to the appellant/respondent no. 5 through speed post/registered post and also directed the petitioner to file his reply to the show-cause notice fixing the next date of hearing on 08.09.2014. 4. It is further submitted that since the file from which the desired information was to be supplied was missing, the petitioner issued letters to the custodian of records and after receiving his reply dated 24.07.2014, he filed ‘Sanha’ before the concerned Police Station vide his letter no. 663/Ra., dated 24.07.2014 in order to obtain order of the Deputy Commissioner, Palamu to open a duplicate one. The petitioner also filed an application before the In-charge Under Secretary, Jharkhand State information Commission vide letter no. 126/Ra. dated 26.07.2014 for grant of some more time to file reply to the show-cause notice as he was to attend some training programme of the Election Commission of India at New Delhi. 5. In the meantime, the petitioner was transferred from the post of Additional Collector-cum-Public Information Officer, Palamu to Ranchi as State Protocol Officer, Cabinet Secretariat & Coordinating Department, Government of Jharkhand and accordingly, he handed over his charges to his successor officer on 01.09.2014, however, before handing over the charge, he provided desired information to the respondent no. 5 vide letter no. 784 dated 01.09.2014 which was also acknowledged by the appellant/respondent no. 5 on 08.09.2014. However, the successor officer of the petitioner did not attend the subsequent date of Appeal No. 108 of 2011 as a result of which the respondent no. 3 passed the impugned order dated 08.09.2014 in Appeal No. 108 of 2011, imposing a sum of Rs.25,000/- as penalty upon the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005 which was to be realized from his monthly salary @ Rs.5000/- per month with further direction to the department of the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as the amount of compensation to the respondent no. 5 under the provision of Section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005, for not furnishing the information to him under the said Act. 6. It is also submitted that the impugned order was passed assuming the fact that information had not been furnished to the respondent no. 5 which was factually incorrect. 5 under the provision of Section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005, for not furnishing the information to him under the said Act. 6. It is also submitted that the impugned order was passed assuming the fact that information had not been furnished to the respondent no. 5 which was factually incorrect. The petitioner having come to know about the impugned order, filed his explanation before the Jharkhand State Information Commission, but was no considered. In fact, the appeal was pending since 2011 and the petitioner was not the Public Information Officer at the time of filing of the application by the respondent no. 5 under the Act, 2005 and as such, if at all there was any statutory delay, it could be attributed to his predecessor-in-office. 7. Moreover, the respondent no. 3 has acted beyond his power and jurisdiction in imposing a penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner with further direction to his department to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- despite the fact that the desired information which was required by the appellant/respondent no. 5 had already been received by him and he also did not appear before the respondent no. 3 to claim that the desired Information had not been furnished to him. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- Jharkhand State Information Commission submits that the Information Commissioner has rightly passed the impugned order since in spite of specific direction to the petitioner, he had neither provided the information to the respondent no. 5 nor had appeared before the Information Commissioner on the date fixed for hearing. The appeal of the respondent no. 5 was pending since 2011, however, the petitioner had failed to provide the required information to him which was in violation of the provisions of the Act, 2005 and as such, the Information Commissioner has committed no wrong in imposing penalty under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005 and compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the said Act. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 10. The thrust of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner cannot be held liable for any delay in providing information to the respondent no. 5 since the appeal of the respondent no. 5 was pending since 2011 and he had taken charge as Public Information Officer on 15.01.2014. 10. The thrust of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner cannot be held liable for any delay in providing information to the respondent no. 5 since the appeal of the respondent no. 5 was pending since 2011 and he had taken charge as Public Information Officer on 15.01.2014. If any delay was caused in providing the required information to the respondent no. 5, the then Public Information Officer should only be held liable for it. 11. It is further contended that the petitioner having come to know about the pendency of appeal before the Commission, he diligently took all steps to provide information to the respondent no. 5 and the same was provided to him vide letter no. 784 dated 01.09.2014. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has put reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of “ Tarni Prasad Mukhia Vs. Jharkhand State Information Commission, through its Secretary & Ors.” reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 1132 , wherein the petitioner of the said case had joined the post of Public Information Officer subsequent to 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 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 had also referred the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “ Manohar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr .” 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 up disciplinary action against the employees. State of Maharashtra & Anr .” 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 up 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. It is not open to the Court to give such liberal construction which would be beyond the specific language of the statute or would be in violation of the principles of natural justice. Moreover, 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 further 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. 13. I have gone through the provisions of 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 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 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.” 14. Thus, there are four conditions under which the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission may impose penalty and recommend initiation of departmental proceeding against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer if the said officer has: (i) refused to receive an application for information. (ii) not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act, 2005. (iii) malafidely denied the request for information. (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. 15. In the present case, the petitioner was not the Public Information Officer at the time of filing of the application by the respondent no. 5 under the Act, 2005, rather he had joined as Deputy Collector-cum-Public Information Officer, Palamu on 15.01.2014 during the pendency of second appeal before the State Information Commission and as such, none of the ingredients for imposing penalty against the petitioner under sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act, 2005 is fulfilled in the present case. Moreover, after taking charge as Public Information Officer, the petitioner had supplied the required information to the respondent no. 5 vide letter no. 784 dated 01.09.2014, which was acknowledged by the respondent no. Moreover, after taking charge as Public Information Officer, the petitioner had supplied the required information to the respondent no. 5 vide letter no. 784 dated 01.09.2014, which was acknowledged by the respondent no. 5 on 08.09.2014, however, he could not file reply to the show-cause notice before the Information Commissioner at the time of hearing of appeal since he was already transferred from the post of Additional Collector, Palamu to Ranchi as State Protocol Officer, Cabinet Secretariat & Coordination Department, Government of Jharkhand. If the delay was occasioned in furnishing information to the respondent no. 5, the officer who was functioning as Public Information Officer at the time of making of application under the Act, 2005 by the respondent no. 5, could have been held liable for penalty under sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act, 2005. The liability under sub-section (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 who was functioning as Public Information Officer and was actually responsible for not providing the information in time as stipulated under Section 7(1) of the Act, 2005. 16. Under the said circumstance, this Court is of the view that the respondent no. 3 while passing the impugned order imposing penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner under Section 20(1) has transgressed the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act, 2005. 17. So far as the order for payment of compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the respondent no. 5 by the department of the petitioner under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005 is concerned, the department of the petitioner has not come up before this Court challenging the said order, rather the petitioner has challenged the subsequent order as contained in letter bearing memo no. 76/Ra. dated 16.04.2015 issued by the respondent no. 4, whereby he has been directed to pay the amount of compensation stating that the same was imposed upon him. 18. I have perused the judgment of learned Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of “ Harishankar Barik Vs. 76/Ra. dated 16.04.2015 issued by the respondent no. 4, whereby he has been directed to pay the amount of compensation stating that the same was imposed upon him. 18. I have perused the judgment of learned Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of “ Harishankar Barik Vs. Information Commissioner & Ors.” (L.P.A No. 74 of 2019) wherein it has been held that Section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005 confers power upon the State Information Commission to pass an order upon the Public Authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or any other detriment suffered and thus, the amount of compensation can be paid only in a case where the complainant has been able to prove before the State Information Commission regarding sustaining any loss or other detriment. 19. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of “ Public Information Officer, Ranchi University Vs. The Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission & Anr.” reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Jhar 5324 also quashed the order of compensation observing that the Information Commissioner had awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- without recording a finding on the issue of mental torture, agony and harassment to the complainant as well as that the complainant had not sought award of compensation for the delay in providing information and harassment caused to him by filing any application with a computation chart on that aspect. 20. This Court also in the case of “ Sido Kanhu Murmu University, Dumka Vs. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commissioner, Ranchi & Ors .” reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 2451 has quashed the order for payment of compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005 observing that there was no finding of the Information Commissioner on the issue that as a result of not providing information to the complainants, they suffered any loss or other detriment which is a condition precedent for awarding compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005. It has further been observed that the Information Commissioner while imposing compensation against the said petitioner (the public authority) under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005 had also not given any finding with respect to the manner in which the respondent no. 3 had suffered loss or other detriment. 21. In the present case also, the Information Commissioner while awarding the compensation to the respondent no. 3 had suffered loss or other detriment. 21. In the present case also, the Information Commissioner while awarding the compensation to the respondent no. 5 has not given any finding to the effect that by not providing the information, the respondent no. 5 has suffered any loss or other detriment, rather he has merely observed that the respondent no. 5 has suffered difficulty due to not providing information to him. 22. I am of the view that the difficulty cannot be a ground to award compensation to the applicant under the Act, 2005. That apart, the compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005 is required to be paid by the public authority being the custodian of record when the information is not provided to the applicant due to inaction on its part, however, in the present case, vide impugned order dated 08.09.2014, the department of the petitioner has been held liable for compensation without any finding to that effect. Thus, the order for payment of compensation by the department of the petitioner to the respondent no. 5 is not legally sustainable. Moreover, subsequently also vide letter dated 16.04.2015 issued by the respondent no. 4, the petitioner has been held liable to pay compensation who was not the public authority as defined under Section 2(h) of the Act, 2005, rather he was the Public Information Officer and thus the order as contained in the said letter dated 16.04.2015 whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005, is also liable to be set-aside. 23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 08.09.2014 as contained in memo no. 10478 dated 22.12.2014 issued under the signature of the respondent no. 3 – the Under Secretary, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi in Appeal Case No. 108 of 2011 is quashed and set-aside. The letter as contained in memo no. 76 dated 16.04.2015 issued by the respondent no. 4 – the Nodal Officer, Public Information Cell- cum-Addl. Collector, Palamu being consequential in nature is also set-aside. 24. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. 25. I.A. No. 671 of 2020 filed on behalf of the respondent no. 5 seeking payment of compensation in view of the impugned order dated 08.09.2014 is also dismissed accordingly.