ORDER : RAJESH SHANKAR, J. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.03.2016 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) passed by the Chief Information Commissioner, Ranchi in Appeal No. 1270 of 2015 preferred by the respondent no. 8 which was communicated to all concerned persons including the petitioner vide memo no. 8212 dated 20.04.2016 issued under the signature of Authorised Officer, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi (the respondent no. 3), whereby a sum of Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner as penalty under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short, “the Act, 2005”) to be recovered from his salary in two equal monthly instalments w.e.f. April, 2016. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 8 sought certain information on 15.09.2014 from the office of the District Education Officer, Godda and accordingly the erstwhile District Education Officer-cum-Public Information Officer, Godda, directed the erstwhile District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer, “Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan”, Godda to provide required information to the respondent no. 8. However, the said information was not provided to the respondent no. 8 and aggrieved with the same, he filed first appeal before the Regional Deputy Director of Education-cum-First Appellate Authority, Dumka. The required information not having been furnished to the petitioner, he subsequently preferred appeal before the Jharkhand Information Commission, Ranchi which was registered as Appeal No. 1270 of 2015. 3. It is further submitted that the petitioner joined the post of District Superintendent of Education, Godda on 02.07.2015 who, vide letter no. 105 dated 12.03.2016, nominated the respondent no. 6 as deemed Public Information Officer, Godda and the said respondent, vide letter no. 294 dated 15.03.2016, informed the respondent no. 1 with respect to providing the required information to the respondent no. 8. Despite that, the Chief Information Commissioner, vide impugned order dated 16.03.2016 imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- upon the petitioner without giving him any opportunity of hearing. 4. It is also submitted that the Chief Information Commissioner while passing the impugned order failed to appreciate that the Jharkhand Education Project Council, Ranchi, vide letter no. 1351 dated 26.05.2010, had directed the District Superintendents of Education-cum-District Programme Officers of all the districts to nominate any one “Assistant Programme Officer” as “Public Information Officer” and “Additional District Programme Officer” as “First Appellate Authority” of the respective district. 5. 1351 dated 26.05.2010, had directed the District Superintendents of Education-cum-District Programme Officers of all the districts to nominate any one “Assistant Programme Officer” as “Public Information Officer” and “Additional District Programme Officer” as “First Appellate Authority” of the respective district. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 3 submits that the Chief Information Commissioner has rightly passed the impugned order dated 16.03.2016 as the information sought by the respondent no. 8 was provided to him after delay of nine months which was in violation of the provisions of the Act, 2005. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner cannot be held liable for any delay in providing information to the respondent no. 8 since the application for required information was filed by him on 15.09.2014 whereas the petitioner joined the post of District Superintendent of Education, Godda on 02.07.2015 i.e., after more than 9 months from the date of filing of the said application. If any delay was committed in providing the required information to the respondent no. 8, the erstwhile Public Information Officer should only be held responsible for the same. 8. It has further been contended that the petitioner having come to know about the pendency of appeal, diligently appointed the Block Education Extension Officer, Godda (respondent no. 6) as deemed Public Information Officer, Godda who, vide letter no. 294 dated 15.03.2016, intimated the respondent no. 1 that the required information was already provided to the respondent no. 8. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has put 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 negligent 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 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. 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. 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, one of the contentions of the petitioner is that in view of the letter no. 1351 dated 26.05.2010 issued by the Jharkhand Education Project Council, Ranchi, the District Superintendent of Education was not the Public Information Officer. It is however not clear from the record as to whether in the light of letter no. 1351 dated 26.05.2010, any Assistant Programme Officer of Godda district was nominated as Public Information Officer of the said district. Even if it is assumed that the District Superintendent of Education was the Public Information Officer at the time of filing of the application under the Act, 2005 by the respondent no. 8, it is undisputed fact that the petitioner was not the Public Information Officer at the time of filing of such application, rather he had joined as District Superintendent of Education, Godda on 02.07.2015. 13. As such, none of the ingredients for imposing penalty upon the petitioner under sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Act, 2005 has been fulfilled in the present case. Moreover, after taking charge as the District Superintendent of Education, Godda-cum- Public Information Officer, the petitioner promptly nominated the respondent no. 6 as deemed Public Information Officer who, vide letter no. 294 dated 15.03.2016, intimated the respondent no. 1 that the required information had already been provided to the respondent no. 8. 14. If the delay was caused in furnishing information to the respondent no. 8, the officer who was functioning as Public Information Officer at the time of filing of the application under Act, 2005 by the respondent no. 8, could have been held liable for any penalty under sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Act, 2005. 8. 14. If the delay was caused in furnishing information to the respondent no. 8, the officer who was functioning as Public Information Officer at the time of filing of the application under Act, 2005 by the respondent no. 8, could have been held liable for any 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 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. 15. Otherwise also, the impugned order has been passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which is in the teeth of the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, 2005 as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Manohar (supra) . Under the said circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Chief Information Commissioner while passing the impugned order of imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/- upon the petitioner under Section 20(1) has transgressed the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act, 2005. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 16.03.2016 passed by the Chief Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi in Appeal No. 1270 of 2015 is quashed and set aside. 17. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.