CWP No. 2167, 2201 and 2215 of 2011 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: February 4,2011 Jagjit Singh ..Petitioner. Versus State Information Commission, Punjab and others ..Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. L.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sartaj Singh Gill, DAG, Punjab for the respondents. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J.(Oral) As identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of all the above mentioned writ petitions by virtue of this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition. However, the factual matrix, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in these writ petitions, has been extracted from CWP No. 2167 of 2011for ready reference. 2. The epitome of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant writ petitions and emanating from the record is that one Smt. Geeta Rani, moved an application dated 19.9.2008 (Annexure P-1) and sought information from the office of Director, Public Instructions (Elementary Education) (for short, “DPI (EE)”) (respondent No.4). As information was not supplied to her, therefore, she filed appeal (Annexure P-2) against the action of the State Public Information Officer (in short, ”SPIO”) of respondent No.4, to State Information Commission (respondent No.1) (for brevity, ”SIC”), invoking the provisions of The Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”). 3. It was stated that no body appeared despite notice, then the SIC CWP No. 2167, 2201 and 2215 of 2011 2 summoned the SPIO to show cause, why a penalty under Section 20 of the Act be not imposed. Since none appeared on his behalf, so the SIC imposed a penalty of ` 25000/- on the respondent-SPIO vide first impugned order dated 14.9.2009 (Annexure P-3). 4. The matter did not rest there. During the course of subsequent hearing, one Avtar Singh, Deputy Director (Elementary) appeared on behalf of respondent No.3, but none appeared on behalf of the complainant. Thereafter, the SIC imposed a penalty of ` 25000/- and directed the DPI(SE)( respondent No.3) as well as DPI(EE)(respondent No.4) to deposit the penalty in the ratio of 50:50, by virtue of order dated 3.12.2009 (Annexure P-4) and the case was adjourned to 25.1.2010. 5. Sequelly, on 25.1.2010, the SIC has suddenly changed his opinion and observed that the penalty should be imposed upon the PIOs in the office of DPI (SE) posted at the relevant time. Petitioner Jagjit Singh and Surjit Kaur were stated to be SPIO of respondent No.3 at the relevant time. In the meantime, petitioner Jagjit Singh retired from the service of respondent No.3. The SIC without issuing any notice to the petitioner passed an adverse impugned order dated 15.7.2010 (Annexure P-5) against him, after his retirement and imposed a penalty of ` 7000/- to be recovered from his pension in this context. 6. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and filed the instant writ petition challenging the impugned order (Annexure P-5), invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended with some amount of vehemence that neither the petitioner was party to any proceedings nor he was at fault but the SIC has passed an adverse order against him, even without issuing show cause notice or affording any opportunity of being heard to him after his retirement. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the statutory provisions CWP No. 2167, 2201 and 2215 of 2011 3 as well as against the principles of natural justice . 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, after going through the record and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant writ petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 9. What is not disputed here is that in the wake of appeal (Annexure P- 2) of Geeta Rani, the SIC passed the first order dated 14.9.2009 (Annexure P-3), the operative part of which is as under:- “The PIO Respondent is directed to deposit the total amount of penalty of ` 25000/- in the State Treasury within 10 days of the date of receipt of these orders. In case he fails to do this, the Director DPI, Punjab, Chandigarh is hereby directed to ensure that the amount of penalty is recovered from the pay of PIO, O/O DPI(SE) Chndigarh and deposited in the State Treasury. The pay of PIO, O/O DPI(SE), Chandigarh will henceforth not be disbursed to him/her till such time as the penalty being imposed has been recovered from him/her. In addition to the above, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act, 2005, I hereby recommend to the concerned disciplinary authority that disciplinary action should be taken against PIO O/O DPI(E) Chandigarh under the Service Rules applicable to him/her for having denied the information to the complainant without reasonable cause and also failure to attend the Commission on date of hearing fixed. It shall be incumbent upon the Director, DPI SE, Chandigarh to inform this court that the orders being passed today have been implemented in letter and spirit before the next date of hearing. To come up on 30.10.2009 at 12 Noon in the Chamber for confirmation.” 10. Likewise, the second order was passed by it sharing the total amount of penalty of ` 25000/- between the DPI(SE) as well as DPI (EE) in the ratio of 50 : 50, by way of impugned order dated 3.12.2009 (Annexure P-4). 11. Not only that, SIC took somersault and passed another order, imposing the penalty of ` 7000/- on the petitioner by means of impugned order CWP No. 2167, 2201 and 2215 of 2011 4 dated 15.7.2010(Annexure P-5) which in substance is as under:- “ I am of the opinion that penalty should be imposed only on the PIO(s) in the office of DPI(SE) at the relevant time. I am also sending the order to the Secretary Education to have a final decision in the matter. As per letter No. 6/78-79 Rect. Branch(8) dated 10.6.2008, Smt. Surjit Kaur remained as PIO for near about 10 months and later Sh. Jagjit Singh Sidhu Deputy Director remained as PIO for about three months, during the period the information was delayed. Therefore, penalty of ` 25000/- for failure of the respondent to supply the information in time is divided in the following ratio: (i) Ms. Surjit Kaur ` 18,000/- (ii) Sh. J.S.Sidhu ` 7,000/- DPI (Secondary Education) is directed to make the recovery of penalty amount from the salary of Ms. Surjit Kaur and from the person of Shri J.S. Sidhu who has now superannuated, within a period of two months, be deposited in the treasury and copy of receipted challan (s) be sent to the Commission, failing which the Commission will be constrained; to refer the matter to the Secretary School Education for taking disciplinary action for non-compliance of the orders of the Commission.” 12. Meaning thereby, the SIC has passed the adverse impugned order, imposing the penalty of ` 7000/- on the petitioner, without issuing any show cause notice and providing any opportunity of being heard after his retirement. Therefore, to me, the impugned order is not only contrary to the statutory provisions, but against the principles of natural justice as well. In this manner, the same cannot legally be sustained on this ground alone in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 13. In the light of aforesaid reasons, and without commenting further anything on merits lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of subsequent hearing, the writ petitions are accepted, the impugned order Annexure P-5 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the SIC for its fresh decision in CWP No. 2167, 2201 and 2215 of 2011 5 the light of aforesaid observations, after issuing show cause notice and providing an opportunity of being heard to the parties and in accordance with law. 14. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the SIC on 7.3.2011. February 4,2011 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) nk JUDGE