Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner was posted as District Superintendent of Education, Chatra and given additional charge of District Education Officer, who was nominated as Public Information Officer by the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand vide Annexure -2. The private respondent herein sought certain information from the District Education Office cum Public Information Officer, Chatra which according to him not being supplied, he preferred first appeal before the Regional Deputy Director of Education, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribag. Despite direction passed in first appeal, when the information was not provided, he preferred second appeal before Jharkhand Information Commission, which was numbered as Appeal No. 1768 of 2010. In the said appeal, by the order dated 1.12.2010 (Annexure -8), petitioner has been imposed with a penalty of Rs. 25,000/ - and a departmental proceeding has also been recommended against her, which has been impugned by the petitioner in the present writ application. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order inter -alia on the grounds that the order was without jurisdiction as a single member of the Commission was not authorized to hear and decide the appeal or impose such punishment against the provision of Section 12(4) or 15(4) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Reference has also been made to the direction issued by the Director, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India dated 22.5.2009 addressed to all the Chief Secretaries of the State, Annexure -9. The aforesaid document is in the nature of advisory to the State Information Commission that the complaints and appeals should be taken up by the Commission and not by the Benches of the Commission. Petitioner has also assailed the order impugned on the ground that no proper notice was received by the petitioner because of bona fide confusion in the wake of the fact that private respondent had sought same information from two different officers including the petitioner and the orders preceding the impugned order i.e. dated 21.9.2010 and 22.10.2010 also have added to the confusion. A reliance has also been placed on the provision of section 20 of the R.T.I. act as per which before imposing any penalty, the Commission has to form an opinion that without any reasonable cause or in a malafide manner information sought for is not being provided to the complainant. This requirement, according to him has not been followed and in support thereof rules framed by the Government of Jharkhand, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa notified on 27.2.2008, known as Jharkhand Right to Information Commission (Procedure for deciding Appeals and Conditions of Service of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2008 has been relied, specifically Rule 6 and its sub rules.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has pointed out to the first order dated 21.9.2010 passed in appeal No. 1768 of 2010 which records that the Officer In -charge, Itkhori Police Station, Chatra has not responded to the request for information of the Appellant/private respondent herein. Consequentially the order recorded that the Officer In -charge, Itkhori Police Station should furnish a reply as to why penalty be not imposed upon him under the provisions of R.T.I act. He also refers to the order to indicate that copy of the order dated 21.9.2010 was in fact sent to the Officer In -charge, Itkhori Police Station treating him as Public Information Officer(P.I.O.) and fixing the next date on 22.10.2010. He has also referred to the communication made by the petitioner to the Block Education Extension Officer, Itkhori dated 7.9.2010 bearing letter No. 1293(Annexure -14) in which the Block Education Extension Officer, Itkhori was directed to appear before the Commission on the date fixed on 21.9.2010 to provide the required information and also report to the undersigned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter also referred to the order recorded in another appeal of the same appellant/private respondent herein being Appeal No. 1769 of 2010, order dated 22.10.2010 (Annexure -7) which was disposed of by the single member of the Commission after the Block Education Extension Officer, Itkhori had appeared and the appellant had not disputed the supply of information by the said Public Information Officer. He submits that despite all that on 1.12.2010, the single member of the Commission had summarily held the petitioner responsible as the Public Information Officer for not supplying the information and also imposed penalty impugned herein, which is in teeth of law and without giving reasonable opportunity to her.;