Jharkhand High Court
Sambhu Prasad Singh vs Jharkhand State Information ... on 18 April, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 788 of 2017
Sambhu Prasad Singh, S/o -Govind Prasad Singh, posted as Deputy
Registrar-cum-Public Information Officer, S.K.M. University, Dumka,
Resident of -Gilanpara, P.O. and P.S. -Dumka, District -Dumka,
Jharkhand. .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Jharkhand State Information Commission, through its Under
Secretary, having office at Engineers' Hostel -2, HEC Campus,
Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. -Dhurwa, District -Ranchi.
2. Lalan Kumar, S/o -not known, Village -Adarsh Nagar, Q. No.
H/240, P.O. and P.S. -Dhurwa, District -Ranchi.
.... Respondents
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioner : Dr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Advocate : Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Aman Shekhar, AC to G.A.-I : Mr. Sanjay Piparwall, Advocate : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A. C. to Mr. Sanjay Piparwall, Advocate .....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing the order dated 03.10.2016, copy of which has been kept at annexure-16 of this writ petition by which the Information Commissioner, Jharkhand in Appeal No. 1053 of 2015 directed to initiate departmental proceeding W.P. (C) No.788 of 2017 1 against the petitioner under Section 20(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 besides imposing a compensation of Rs.50,000/- upon the petitioner who was the Public Information Officer of Sidho Kanhu Murmu University, Dumka.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that undisputedly the petitioner is not the Public Authority but a Public Information Officer and there is a distinction between Public Authority and Public Information Officer as defined under Section 2 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Drawing attention of this Court to Section 19(8)(b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Information Commission has been vested with the power by that Statute to require any Public Authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered but Section 19(8)(b) does not vest the power upon the Information Commission to require any Public Information Officer to compensate the complainant, hence the impugned order so far as it relates to payment of compensation is not in accordance with Section 19 (8)(b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Therefore, it is submitted that the said portion of the order be quashed and set aside.
4. So far as the order for recommendation of disciplinary action against the writ petitioner and Public Information Officer is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of W.P. (C) No.788 of 2017 2 Manohar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. reported in (2012) 13 SCC 14, para -22 & 23 of which reads as under:-
"22. We may notice that proviso to Section 20(1) specifically contemplates that before imposing the penalty contemplated under Section 20(1), the Commission shall give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the officer concerned. However, there is no such specific provision in relation to the matters covered under Section 20(2). Section 20(2) empowers the Central or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding a complaint or appeal for the reasons stated in that section, to recommend for disciplinary action to be taken against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the relevant service rules. Power to recommend disciplinary action is a power exercise of which may impose penal consequences. When such a recommendation is received, the disciplinary authority would conduct the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law and subject to satisfaction of the requirements of law. It is a "recommendation" and not a "mandate" to conduct an enquiry. "Recommendation" must be seen in contradistinction to "direction" or "mandate". But recommendation itself vests the delinquent Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer with consequences which are of serious nature and can ultimately produce prejudicial results including misconduct within the relevant service rules and invite minor and/or major penalty.
23. Thus, the principles of natural justice have to be read into the provisions of Section 20(2). It is a settled canon of civil jurisprudence including service jurisprudence that no person be condemned unheard. Directing disciplinary action is an order in the form of recommendation which has far reaching civil consequences. It will not be permissible to take the view that compliance with principles of natural justice is not a condition precedent to passing of a recommendation under Section 20(2)." (Emphasis supplied) Hence, as the order of recommendation of disciplinary proceeding has been passed without adhering the principles of natural justice, hence the same is not sustainable in law and the same be set aside.W.P. (C) No.788 of 2017 3
5. The learned counsel for the respondent relies upon the Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hari Nandan Singh Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. in L.P.A. No. 169 of 2023 dated 28.07.2023 in para-7 & 8 of which it was observed as under:-
"7. In the instant case, the learned Single Judge should have remanded the matter for following the principle of natural justice and passing an appropriate order after giving opportunity to the writ petitioner, more so, when the learned Single Judge has arrived at a finding that the information was supplied after five months and imposition of fine is automatic and the informant Commissioner has no other option, but to impose fine. Thus, we set aside the part of the impugned order by which, the imposition of fine has been set aside.
8. We remand the matter to the Information Commissioner to issue notice to the Authority/person for whose fault, the information was supplied belatedly. Further the Information Commissioner is directed to hear the parties and thereafter pass a reasoned order afresh on the question of imposition of penalty. It is expected that the Information Commissioner would dispose of the proceeding after hearing the parties, as expeditiously as possible."
And submits that as the petitioner claims quashing of the order on the ground that the principles of natural justice has not been followed, hence this is a fit case that in case the said order is quashed, the same be remanded to the Information Commissioner to pass fresh order after following the principles of natural justice before passing the order under Section 22 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, this Court has no hesitation in holding that Section 19(8)(b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in no uncertain terms vest the power with the Information W.P. (C) No.788 of 2017 4 Commission to require only the Public Authority to compensate the complainant but in this case, undisputedly the writ petitioner who was not a Public Authority but a Public Information Officer has been required to compensate the complainant which is not in accordance with law. Accordingly, the impugned order so far as it relates to requiring the writ petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- is quashed and set aside.
7. So far as the impugned order relating to recommendation for disciplinary action against the writ petitioner -Public Information Officer is concerned, in view of the settled principle of law in the case of Manohar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (supra), as the said order has been passed without following the principles of natural justice, hence in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hari Nandan Singh Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra), the portion of the order recommending the disciplinary action against the writ petitioner -Public Information Officer is set aside.
8. The matter is remanded back to the Information Commissioner to pass a fresh order after following the principles of natural justice.
9. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 18th April, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
W.P. (C) No.788 of 2017 5