IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 13571 of 2011. [O&M] Date of Decision: 14th November, 2011. S.K.Aggarwal Petitioner through Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate Versus State of Haryana & Ors. Respondents through Mr. R.D.Sharma, DAG, Haryana. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 13571 and 13572 of 2011 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No. 13571 of 2011. The petitioner – Executive Engineer is also designated as State Public Information Officer, Provincial Division, PWD [B&R], Jhajjar. He is aggrieved by the order dated 15.02.2010 passed by the State Information Commissioner, Haryana and the notice dated 19.04.2011 issued to him by the Engineer-in-Chief, Haryana asking the petitioner to deposit a penalty of `50,000/-, i.e., `25,000/- each imposed on him in two cases. The impugned order/notice have arisen out of the proceedings initiated by the 5th respondent under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The said respondent is not present despite service. The record reveals that respondent No. 5 moved an application dated 30.05.2009 [Annexure P-1] seeking information regarding carpeting of some roads in the rural area, though he himself claims to be a resident of Ram Gopal Colony, Rohtak. It is obvious that the information was sought to help some one in a court case or otherwise. The petitioner admittedly sent the requisite information within two weeks but inadvertently he forwarded the said information to the Superintending Engineer, PWB [B&R], Jhajjar, namely, higher authority, and not to respondent No. 5. Due to the afore-stated reason, delay occurred in the delivery of information to respondent No. 5 and he meanwhile approached the State Information Commissioner, who vide the impugned order dated 15.02.2010 has imposed the penalty of `25,000/- [in each case] on the petitioner to be recoverable in four equated monthly installments. The penalty has been imposed after observing that there was a delay of over four months, without reasonable cause in furnishing the information. It further appears that based upon the orders passed by the State Information Commissioner, the Department has also initiated proceedings against the petitioner for violating the Government Employees Conduct Rules, 1966, prompting him to approach this Court. The official respondents have filed their reply/affidavit defending the order of the State Information Commissioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The State Information Commissioner is expected to draw a clear distinction between the cases where the Public Information Officer deliberately withholds the information vis-a-vis the cases where there is no such intentment but the procedural wranglings caused the delay in supplying the information. It appears that the petitioner's case before the State Information Commissioner was that the 5th respondent had moved two identical applications dated 30.05.2009, i.e., one before him and the other before the Superintending Engineer, PWD [B&R], who marked the said second application also to the petitioner. The information was prepared by the petitioner well in time and instead of sending it to respondent No. 5, he had forwarded the same to the Superintending Engineer, from whom the said application dated 30.05.2009 was received. If that were to be so, it does appear that the explanation rendered by the petitioner can not be brushed aside outrightly. This aspect of the matter, however, requires reconsideration by the State Information Commissioner after summoning the original record. Consequently, the impugned order dated 15.02.2010 [Annexure P-1] to the extent of adverse observations made against the petitioner or imposition of resultant penalty are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the State Information Commissioner, Haryana to adjudicate afresh, if so required, after summoning the record. Disposed of. Dasti. November 14, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE