1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10524 OF 2009 Vilas B. Shinde ... Petitioner Vs. Chief Information Commissioner, State Information Commission & Ors. Respondents Mr. Mihir Desai with Mr. T.R.Yadav, Advocates, for the petitioner. Dr. Ravindra T.Deoghare, Advocate,for respondent No.4. Mr.V.S.Masurkar, Govt. Pleader for respondent No.3. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND J.H.BHATIA, JJ. DATE : 15th December, 2009. P.C. 1. Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. An application was made under the Right to Information Act,2005. The information as sought, it appears, was partly given. With regard to some other information, the applicant was asked to contact the Affiliation Section. Aggrieved by this, an appeal was preferred to the appellate authority. The first appellate authority directed to give information by the concerned P.I.O. For the remaining information, the concerned P.I.O. was directed to transfer the original R.T.I. Application to the P.I.O. concerned immediately. The appeal was accordingly disposed off by order dated 7.11.2008. The applicant was aggrieved 2 and preferred appeals. One such order is dated 16.9.2009 by which the petitioner was warned and the University was directed to take note of the same in the confidential records of the P.I.O. Earlier, it appears that a penalty was imposed in the sum of Rs.17,500/- by the State Information Commission with a direction to recover in three instalments from the salary of the petitioner. The petitioner had earlier filed a petition which was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh one as and when occasion arises. 3. The petitioner filed the present petition pointing out that earlier the University was not a party and further that though he had represented to the University, as in other cases, not to recover from him, but from the University reserve fund. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The first question is whether the 1st respondent could direct entries to be made in the C.R. of the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the State agrees with the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner that there is no such jurisdiction in the 1st respondent. After considering the scheme of the Act, in our opinion, there is no such power conferred on the State Commissioner to direct sue motu entries in the C.R. At the highest, a direction could have been given to the concerned 3 disciplinary authority to take steps. The impugned order therefore is clearly without jurisdiction. Apart from that, it is now well settled that before any adverse remark is made against an officer, that officer must be informed that adverse remark is going to be passed against such officer. The impugned order does not disclose that the petitioner was put to such notice. In our opinion, on this count also the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Insofar as costs is concerned, we do not propose to pass order. It will be open to the petitioner to once again represent to the University considering that he was holding the post of Director of Examinations and that the information if not conveyed in time was not on account of his fault, but on failure to give information by the Department to the Section and that as such the amount recovered should be reimbursed to him by debiting it from the University fund as done in another case. If on such representation, the University rejects the same, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the decision as also the impugned decision imposing costs. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.)