IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1664 of 2010. Dr. D.C.S.Rawat S/O Late Sri R.S.Rawat. … Petitioner. Vs. Chief Information Commissioner, Dehradun, Uttarakhand and others. …Respondents. Mr. D.S.Patni and Mr. P.S.Uniyal, Advocates, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. Date September 23, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Stay Application No. 8149 of 2010) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Notice on behalf of the respondent no. 1 is accepted by Mr. Vipul Sharma, advocate. Learned counsel for the parties have agreed that this writ petition may be disposed of finally at the admission stage without inviting counter affidavit. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 22- 7-2010 (Annexure-1) passed by respondent no.1- Chief Information Commissioner whereby an amount of Rs. 2,500/- was imposed as penalty on the Public Information Officer-petitioner and recommendation was also made for initiating departmental proceedings against him. The contention of the petitioner is that when the show cause notice was issued by the respondent no.l, the petitioner had already been transferred from Pauri Garhwal to Narendra Nagar (Tehri Garhwal) and he had not received the show cause notice and the reply to the show cause notice was given by the successor of the petitioner, therefore, the penalty imposed against the petitioner is not tenable. 2 The only grievance of the petitioner is that no opportunity of hearing was given to her before imposing the penalty of Rs.2,500/- against the petitioner as Public Information Officer by the impugned order. According to the petitioner prior to the issuance of notice, he was transferred from Pauri Garhwal and no show-cause notice was served upon him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, argued that it cannot be said that adequate opportunity of hearing was available to the petitioner before passing the impugned order thereby imposing the penalty and making recommendation for departmental proceedings against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to Proviso one appended to Section 20 of the Right to Information Act 2005 (for short the Act) has vehemently urged that no opportunity of being heard has been given to the petitioner. Proviso one appended to Section 20 of Act makes it obligatory that a reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be given to the Officer concerned before any penalty is imposed against him. In the above facts and circumstances, it is obvious that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner/Public Information Officer before passing the impugned order. As such, there has been violation of principles of natural justice and fair play. The impugned order is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also urged that this Court in Writ Petition No. 246 of 2009 (M/S) L. Fanai Vs. The Uttarakhand Information Commission and another has passed an order dated 26-6-2009 whereby the order of the Information Commission was set aside. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 has 3 fairly conceded that the matter was remanded to the Information Commission by order dated 26-6-2009 in Writ Petition No. 246 of 2009 (M/S). In view of the above facts and circumstances, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the respondent no.1 (Annexure- 1 to the petition) is set aside. The Information Commission, Uttarakhand is directed to give a personal hearing to the petitioner after issuing a show cause notice to him afresh and, thereafter, the Information Commission may pass suitable order afresh in the matter in accordance with law. All pending applications stand disposed of. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP 4