"Not Designated Public Information Officer": Madras High Court Allows Sanitation Inspector's Plea To Quash Penalty For Inadequate RTI Reply
The Madras High Court recently allowed a petition filed by a Sanitation Inspector for quashing an order imposing a penalty of Rs. 25000 (highest under the Right to Information Act) for providing inadequate reply in an RTI Application. The bench of Justice S. Srimathy observed that the petitioner was only providing reply upon the directions of the Municipal Commissioner and was himself not...
The Madras High Court recently allowed a petition filed by a Sanitation Inspector for quashing an order imposing a penalty of Rs. 25000 (highest under the Right to Information Act) for providing inadequate reply in an RTI Application.
The bench of Justice S. Srimathy observed that the petitioner was only providing reply upon the directions of the Municipal Commissioner and was himself not a designated Public Information Officer.
The court observed as under:
"This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner was not designated as Public Information Officer and has not acted as in-charge Public Information Officer. In such circumstances, the information furnished by the petitioner is only based on the direction of the Municipal Commissioner that is the second respondent, without assigning any designation as in-charge Public Information Officer. Therefore, the punishment imposed on the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs 25,000/-, as penalty, which is the maximum punishment that is prescribed under the Act is liable to be interfered and the impugned order is quashed. If any amount is recovered based on the impugned order, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner."
The petitioner was working as Sanitary Inspector in Kayalpattinam Municipality. Under the RTI Act, a Public Information Officer is appointed to receive applications and furnish information. In Municipality, the Manager was designated as the Public Information Officer. In Kayalpattinam Municipality the post of Manager was vacant for a long time and no one was acting as "In-charge Manager".
The contention of the petitioner was that his post is subordinate to the post of Manager and he is incompetent to receive applications and provide information under Right to Information Act. As the post was kept vacant for a period from 2010 to 2013, the other officials who were not designated as Public Information Officers had been advised by their superiors to provide necessary information under the Right to Information Act.
One P.M.M.Mohideen of Changanacherry of Kerala State had sought information under the Right to Information Act, regarding the property tax. The applications were addressed to the Public Information Officer, Kayalpattinam Municipality as well as the Public Information Officer cum Municipal Commissioner, Kayalpattinam Municipal Corporation. The information sought was furnished by the Municipal Corporation on 15.03.2011.
Not satisfied by the information provided by the Municipality, Mohideen preferred an appeal before the first respondent which directed the Public Information Officer to provide all the documents sought under the application. Accordingly, the copies of the relevant documents were furnished to Mohideen through his brother. Since the documents were not sent to him directly, the State Information Commissioner issued show cause notice to the petitioner and the second respondent (Municipal Commissioner).
As per the instructions of the Commissioner, the petitioner appeared before the State Information Commissioner and made oral submissions regarding the issue raised in the show cause notice. But the State Information Commissioner vide his order, dated 06.08.2014, rejected the petitioner's explanation and imposed the maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/- and directed the Municipal Commissioner to recover the same from the petitioner's salary.
Pursuant to the order of the first respondent, dated 06.08.2014, the second respondent vide proceedings, dated 25.08.2014, ordered to recover the penalty amount in five installments.
The petitioner contended that he was not given sufficient opportunity to put forward his case. He submitted that since he was not designated as the Public Information Officer of the Municipality, the order was in violation of the Right to Information Act.
The court agreed with the submissions of the petitioner. The court also took note of the fact that the Petitioner had furnished copies of all the available documents and that the property tax dispute for which the documents were sought for is pending before the civil court. Considering that the petitioner was only following directions of the Municipal Commissioner and was not acting under a designation, the court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order.