Penalty Under RTI Act Cannot Be Imposed Without Notifying Responsible Officer: Jharkhand HC Sets Aside ₹25k Fine On Addl Dy Commissioner

The Jharkhand High Court has held that a penalty under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, cannot be imposed without first issuing notice to the officer actually responsible for the delay in furnishing information.

Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, setting aside a ₹25,000 penalty imposed on Ganesh Kumar, the then Additional Deputy Commissioner of East Singhbhum, said, “for the purpose of achieving the object of the Act and to maintain the provision of Section 20(1) by way of deterrent measure, a notice ought to have been issued to the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, the present petitioner and the Circle Officer in order to assess that who is at fault.”

The court also noted, “the Information Commission without applying the mind will issue notice to any of the officials without knowing the fact that who actually was conferred with the power to act as a Public Information Officer by virtue of issuance of notification by the State Government.”

The ruling came in a writ petition filed by one Ganesh Kumar challenging the Jharkhand State Information Commission's order dated in an appeal.

Facts of the Case

Ganesh Kumar had been posted as Additional Deputy Commissioner at East Singhbhum and was designated as a Public Information Officer by virtue of a departmental letter. On 10.11.2010, Bhola Prasad (respondent no.4) filed an RTI application seeking information regarding mutation appeal proceedings. The application was submitted to the Deputy Commissioner's office, where Ganesh Kumar received it. As the subject matter fell within the domain of the Circle Officer, he forwarded the application on 09.12.2011 to the Circle Officer, who was the designated PIO, under Section 6(3) of the Act. The Circle Officer subsequently provided the information.

Despite this, the applicant proceeded with a second appeal before the State Information Commission, which issued a show-cause notice to Ganesh Kumar. Even after the Circle Officer complied with the Commission's directions and supplied the information, the Commission rejected Ganesh Kumar's explanation and imposed a penalty of ₹25,000, ordering recovery through salary deductions.

Contentions Raised

The petitioner argued that he was not the designated PIO and had acted promptly upon receipt of the application by forwarding it to the appropriate authority. He contended that he could, at best, be considered a deemed PIO under Section 5(5) of the RTI Act. Further, he pointed out that the Commission failed to issue any notice to the Circle Officer, despite acknowledging that the information was supplied by him. This, he argued, rendered the penal order arbitrary and unsustainable.

On the other hand, counsel for the State Information Commission defended the order on the ground that the petitioner had never informed the Commission that he was not the designated PIO, and hence the Commission proceeded on available records.

Court's Findings

The High Court held that the Commission's order suffered from procedural irregularity and a failure to adhere to the statutory mandate under Section 20(1) of the Act. In particular, the Court found that the Information Commission was aware, on the face of the record, that the Circle Officer had supplied the information, yet no notice was ever issued to him.

In its judgement, the Court observed, “when the Information Commission has taken the reference of supplying the information which admittedly has been supplied by the Circle Officer, then notice also ought to have been issued to the Circle Officer in order to come to the conclusion as to who is at default in not following the statutory mandate as provided under Section 7 of the Act, 2005. ”

Further, the Court noted, “The aforesaid fact of supply of relevant information by the Circle Officer was well available in the record but even then the Circle Officer has not been issued notice.”

Relying on the jurisprudence governing writs of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly Syed Yakoob vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Ors., A.I.R. 1964 Supreme Court 477, the Court emphasized that a writ can be issued where a tribunal acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or fails to adhere to principles of natural justice.

Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned order dated 26.08.2013, allowing the writ petition and remitting the matter back to the State Information Commission to pass a fresh order after issuing notices to both the petitioner and the Circle Officer.

Case Title: Ganesh Kumar vs The State of Jharkhand and ors

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 24

Click here to Read Judgement