IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17259 of 2009 Devendra Kumar Singh Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors 4/ 08/09/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State Information Commission. The petitioner, a Block Education Extension Officer, is aggrieved by the order dated 22.6.2009 imposing the penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon him under the Right to Information Act (hereinafter referred to as the R.T.I. Act) for alleged failure to furnish information in time. The allegations have been answered by the petitioner that he not only furnished the information within time to the complainant by U.P.C., but also by registered post. When a communication is sent by U.P.C., the onus lies on the sender to demonstrate that it was in fact dispatched and delivered. When a communication is sent by registered post, a presumption to the contrary arises that it reached its destination in the normal course unless shown to the contrary. The onus shall lie on the addressee to demonstrate that it never reached. The contention of the petitioner with regard to dispatch by registered post was denied by the complainant urging that queries from 2 the Postal Department had evoked no response. That was not sufficient to hold that the petitioner was not correct. The statutory authority should then have appropriately proceeded to make enquiries from the Postal Department and then passed appropriate orders. The submission therefore is of a presumptive order of punishment contrary to the law. It is next submitted that simultaneously departmental proceedings had also been recommended and on completion of the same, the petitioner has been exonerated holding that he had performed his obligations under the R.T.I. Act within time in accordance with law. Since the developments with regard to the departmental proceedings have not been brought on record and the respondents have had no opportunity to answer the same, and which has a direct bearing on the order of punishment, the matter is remanded to respondent No.1 to re-consider and re-examine the order of punishment in light of the same. The order dated 22.6.2009 is formally set aside. Let the respondents pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order considering all aspects of the matter that my be placed before them by the petitioner, within a maximum period of 3 months from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of this order. 3 Needless to state that the question of recovery and/or refund, as the case may be, shall necessarily have to abide by such fresh final order when appropriate remedial action shall be taken simultaneously. The writ application is allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)