Jharkhand High Court
Shobha Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand Through on 7 December, 2022
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 7603 of 2013
Shobha Devi, Aged about 60 years, wife of Late Ashok Sharma, R/o-At
Gokul Dham Apartment, Morhabadi, P.O-Morhabadi, P.S-Bariyatu, Dist-
Ranchi, Jharkhand. ....... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand through, Principal Secretary H.R.D at Project
Building, P.O. & P.S-Dhurwa, Dist-Ranchi.
2.Information Commissioner, State Information Commission, Engineers
Hostel No.2, H.E.C. Premises, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District
Ranchi.
3.Harihar Ghose, Father' name not known to the petitioner, R/o Village-
11/A, Sheuli road, Pramathanager, P.O. & P.S-Parsudih, Town-Jamshedpur,
District-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. ...... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Kumar Saurav, Advocate
: Mr. Harsha Chandra, Advocate
For the Resp-SIC : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate
For the Resp. No.3 : Mr. Sharad Kaushal, Advocate
-----------
th
10/Dated: 07 December, 2022
I.A. No.1478 of 2021
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for substitution of the writ petitioner, namely, Ashok Kumar Sharma who has died on 30.12.2019.
2. The applicant in this interlocutory application is the widow, wife of the writ petitioner and as such it has been submitted that right to sue survives, since, there is an order of recovery of Rs.20,000/- as has been imposed by the State Information Commission in exercise of power conferred under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 2005').
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents is having no objection if the prayer made for substituting the writ petitioner, namely, Ashok Sharma as directed herein will be allowed.
2
4. Considering the submission made on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the reason assigned in the interlocutory application, the same is hereby allowed.
The office is directed to make necessary correction in the cause title of the writ application.
5. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) No.7603 of 2013
6. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the order dated 20.09.2013 passed by the Chief Information Commissioner, Jharkhand in Appeal Case No.2562 of 2011 has been challenged whereby and whereunder a penalty of Rs.20,000/- has been imposed upon the original writ petitioner, the husband of the writ petitioner in exercise of power conferred under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005.
7. The brief fact of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which requires to be enumerated, reads hereunder as:
The husband of the writ petitioner while working as District Education Officer, East Singhbhum had received an application dated 01.02.2011 from the office of the Deputy Director-cum-Public Information Officer, Primary Education, Jharkhand whereby the following information was sought for:
"Copy of the inquiry report made by the District Education Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur including action taken thereof (if any) by the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi as per aforesaid direction passed by him vide letter no.5218 dated 22.12.2010."
It is the case of the husband of the writ petitioner that the aforesaid information was received by him on 14.12.2011 and admittedly on the next date i.e. on 15.12.2011 the information was supplied along with the copy of the enquiry report. The respondent no.3, the information seeker had filed an 3 appeal for not providing the information to him. It is the case of the husband of the writ petitioner that the information even though had been supplied by him to the information seeker, the respondent no.3 but the respondent no.3 had filed an appeal for not supplying the information pertaining to action taken over the said enquiry report.
The State Information Commission had issued show cause to the husband of the writ petitioner as to why he be not dealt with by imposing penalty in exercise of power conferred under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005. The reply to the show cause was filed by the husband of the writ petitioner by taking the ground that there is no delay on his part in supplying the information so sought for, rather, the information was supplied immediately on the following day when the details of information was supplied with the receipt from the office of the Deputy Director-cum-Public Information Officer, Primary Education, Jharkhand to the office of the District Education Officer, Jamshedpur, which was being held by the husband of the writ petitioner and in that capacity he was discharging the duty as the Public Information Officer. The aforesaid reply was not found satisfactory by the State Information Commission on the ground that the action taken report upon the said enquiry report since was not furnished, therefore, the entire information was not supplied to the information seeker and hence the husband of the writ petitioner in the capacity of deemed Public Information Officer has failed in discharging his official duty as casted upon him under the Act, 2005. The aforesaid order is the subject matter of the writ petition.
8. Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has questioned the said order on the ground that there is no laches on the part of the husband of the writ petitioner, since, the State Information Commission has stated him to be the deemed Public Information Officer 4 while he cannot be treated to be deemed Public Information Officer, rather, by virtue of notification issued by the State competent authority the husband of the writ petitioner was holding the post of District Education Officer and was working as a Public Information Officer.
It has been contended that so far as the terms used even, the husband of the writ petitioner as the deemed Public Information Officer that is not applicable for the husband of the writ petitioner, rather, the same should be used for the Deputy Director-cum-Public Information Officer, Primary Education, Jharkhand who is sitting in the headquarter before whom the due application was filed by the information seeker for supply of the aforesaid document and since he was not discharging the function of Public Information Officer, therefore, he had forwarded the said application seeking information to the Public Information Officer, the husband of the writ petitioner, namely, Ashok Kumar Sharma, on 14.12.2011 and the very following day i.e. on 15.12.2011 the information which was available in his office was supplied to the information seeker.
So far as the action taken report on the enquiry report is concerned, the submission has been made that the action which was to be taken on the very enquiry report by the authority sitting in the Directorate and not by the writ petitioner in the capacity of District Education Officer. But, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the State Information Commission and mechanically the penalty of Rs.20,000/- has been imposed by exercising the power conferred under section 20(1) of the Act, 2005.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the aforesaid backdrop has submitted that the order passed by the State Information Commission 5 suffers from perversity and therefore, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law.
9. Per contra, Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for the State Information Commission has defended the order passed by the Commission by taking the ground that the husband of the writ petitioner who by virtue of discharging the function of Public Information Officer ought to have supplied the information pertaining to action taken on the basis of enquiry report.
It has been contended that if there is no action on the said enquiry report then also it was incumbent upon the writ petitioner to supply the information to the effect that no action has yet been taken at the Directorate level. The Commission has taken into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter and has come to conclusion by holding the husband of the writ petitioner guilty in not discharging his function as casted upon him under the Act, 2005 and in that view of the matter if the penalty has been imposed by making exercise of power conferred under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005, the same cannot be said to be suffer from an error.
10. Mr. Sharad Kaushal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 has appeared on being noticed vide order dated 26.10.2015. It has been submitted that the argument which has been advanced by Mr. Piprawall is being adopted.
In addition to that it has been submitted that since the statutory liability was casted upon the husband of the writ petitioner and as such it was incumbent upon him to discharge the aforesaid statutory duty but having not done so and in such circumstances the penalty has been imposed in exercise of power conferred under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005, the same cannot be said to be suffer from an error.
6
11. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the State Information Commission in the impugned order dated 20.09.2013 appended as Annexure-12 to the writ petition.
12. This Court before entering into the legality and propriety of the impugned order dated 20.09.2013 requires to refer herein that the position of law so far as it relates to the Act, 2005 is concerned, it is the statutory duty casted upon the functionaries who have been held responsible to supply information as has been sought for which is coming under the fold of the definition of Information provided under Section 2(f) of the Act, 2005. It is also equally the accountability of the functionary under the Act, 2005 to supply the information within the statutory period of 30 days as provided under Section 7 of the Act, 2005.
13. The respondent no.3 had made an application for supply of certain information, i.e., the copy of the enquiry report and the action taken on the said enquiry report. The aforesaid application was filed before the Deputy Director, Primary Education, Jharkhand treating him to be the Public Information Officer as would appear from the aforesaid application appended as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The aforesaid application was transmitted/forwarded by the Deputy Director, Primary Education, Jharkhand to the District Education Officer, Jamshedpur who was discharging his function as Public Information Officer. The aforesaid letter was received in the office of the District Education Officer, Jamshedpur on 14.12.2011. The information was supplied by the District Education Officer, Jamshedpur on 15.12.2011 so far as it relates to furnishing the copy of the enquiry report.
7
14. It requires to refer herein the fact that the Deputy Director was not assigned to work as Public Information Officer is not in dispute due to the simple reason that the Deputy Director would have been assigned to function as Public Information Officer, there was no reason for him to forward the said letter to the District Education Officer, Jamshedpur who by virtue of holding that post was discharging the duty as Public Information Officer.
15. It is the grievance of the husband of the writ petitioner that even though the part of the statutory liability was being discharged by him but he had been noticed by the State Information Commission on an appeal filed by the information seeker, i.e, respondent no.3 before the State Information Commission to explain as to why he be not imposed penalty in exercise of power conferred under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005.
The husband of the writ petitioner appeared and submitted his reply denying the liability by taking the ground that two information was sought for, i.e., (i) the copy of the enquiry report which was to be supplied immediately on receipt of the application from the office of the Deputy Director, Primary Education, Jharkhand which was received on 14.12.2011 and by supplying the same on the very next day i.e. on 15.12.2011 as such the statutory liability for supplying of the document has already been complied with. It has been stated therein that so far as the second information, i.e., the action taken report upon the enquiry report is concerned the same has not been supplied due to the reason that the enquiry which was conducted by the concerned authority/body since was forwarded before the Directorate, the competent decision taking authority, therefore, there was no reason to supply the document pertaining to action taken report.
16. The case of the writ petitioner that the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the State Information Commission 8 and in absence thereof the husband of the writ petitioner has been held responsible for laches of non-supply of the action taken report upon the said enquiry report.
17. This Court is not in disagreement with the contention raised on behalf of the writ petitioner to that effect. But it does not mean that the enquiry so sought for by the information seeker will not be supplied whether it is the enquiry report or the action taken report on the basis of the said enquiry report. But when the writ petitioner has taken the ground before the State Information Commission that the action taken report on the basis of the said enquiry report since was not in the domain of the District Education Officer, the husband of the writ petitioner by virtue of that he was discharging his function as the Public Information Officer then in such scenario the State Information Commission ought to have conducted an enquiry by calling upon the officers posted at Directorate level.
But it is evident from the impugned order that no such enquiry has been conducted in that regard and in absence thereof, the original writ petitioner has been held responsible by holding him guilty and inflicting penalty of Rs.20,000/- in exercise of power conferred under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005.
18. This Court, in view of the aforesaid fact, is of the view that the order impugned in absence of the enquiry about the authority to take decision on the enquiry report or whether it has been supplied by the Directorate to the District Education Officer since has not been enquired into, therefore, the order impugned suffers from perversity and in that view of the matter the same requires interference.
19. Accordingly, the order dated 20.09.2013 is hereby quashed and set aside.
9
In consequence thereof, the matter is remitted before the State Information Commission to pass order afresh after taking into consideration the liability/accountability of the Directorate.
20. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
21. Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel, undertakes to communicate this order to the State Information Commission.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Saket/-
N.A.F.R.