- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The order passed by the respondent no.2State Information Commission dated 10.04.2007 in Appeal No. 57 of 2006 communicated vide Memo No. 1019 dated 11.04.2007 (Annexure6), is under challenge, by which a cost of Rs. 25,000/ has been imposed upon the petitioner and further directing the respondent nos. 5 & 6 to deduct the same from the salary of the petitioner in five equal installments.
(2.) IT is submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that vide Annexure1, information was sought for from the Public Information OfficercumDistrict Education Officer, Education Department, Palamau, Medninagar by one Binod Prajapati, who was a teacher placed under suspension in a middle school at Turktelaiya, Palamau vide his application made to R.T.I dated 19.08.2006. It is further submitted that since persons seeking information was a middle school teacher, the information sought for were to be supplied by the District Superintendent of Education, Palamau at Daltonganj, who has control and supervision over the employees and teachers working in the middle school. The petitioner immediately forwarded the request vide letter no. 2500 dated 25.08.2006. The petitioner also followed up by another letter dated 22.2.2007 Annexure3 reminding D.S.E., Palamau to furnish the relevant information without any delay indicating to him that therewith responsibility would lay on the D.S.E concerned. The petitioner thereafter again followed through another letter contained at Annexure4 bearing no. 620 dated 26.03.2007 with the D.S.E., Palamau categorically asking him to furnish the relevant information as per the direction of the Jharkhand State Information Commission and to be physically present before the Commission. Thereafter an order was recorded in the appeal being Appeal No. 57/2006 by the Information Commissioner vide order dated 12.02.2007 stating that the District Superintendent of Education is not willing to furnish information to the appellant. However, the final order has been passed dated 11.04.2007 communicated vide Memo NO. 1019, wherein a cost of Rs. 25,000/ has been imposed upon this petitioner, although the petitioner was not at all responsible for the delay in furnishing the information as the information lay with the District Superintendent of Education, Palamau, under whose jurisdiction the person seeking information was working as a teacher. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the petitioner has been made liable without any fault on his part for the cost of Rs. 25,000/ to be deducted from her salary and which may also have adverse civil consequences upon her service carrier. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner including learned cousnel for the StateRespondents and after going through the averments made in the writ petition as also the Annexures and the impugned order, it appears that the petitioner has taken all due diligent steps in pursuing that the required information is furnished under R.T.I to the person concerned, for which he had duly informed and reminded the D.S.E., Palamau, time and again. It appears that even the Commission had recorded in one of its order dated 12.02.2007 in the pending appeal that it is District Superintendent of Education, who is lingering the matter by not providing, the information. However, contrary to the aforesaid facts and their own recording, Information Commissioner has passed order by which a cost of Rs. 25,000/ has been imposed upon the petitioner, which appears to be unsustainable in law as well as facts, the impugned order also suffered from nonapplication of mind.
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid facts recorded and the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order dated 11.04.2007 (Annexure6), is set aside and the writ petition is accordingly allowed.;