LPA No. 383 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 383 of 2011 Date of decision 4.3.2011 Major (Ex.) Shaveta Sharma Nagarkoti …….Appellant Vs. State Information Commission and ors …….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: - Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Hemant Gupta, J Challenge in the present petition is to an order dated 11.2.2011 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition was disposed of by observing that the Estate officer, HUDA will inquire into the stated negligence of the petitioner independently, without being influenced, in any manner, from the impugned order dated 2.9.2009 passed by the State Information Commission Haryana. It is the case of the appellant that the Chief Information Commissioner has dropped the penal proceedings against the State Public Information Officer (SPIO), HUDA, Gurgaon but directed to initiate action against the Deputy Superintendent as well as on Sub Divisional Engineer (Survey)/ Junior Engineer concerned for the irresponsible way in which the show cause notice was dealt with in the Estate Office. In pursuance of the said directions, appellant has been served a show cause notice dated 1.6.2010. The appellant 1 LPA No. 383 of 2011 submitted her reply on 13.7.2010. The final decision pursuant to the show cause notice is yet to be taken by the Competent Authority. The argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that having dropped the penal proceedings against the SPIO, proceedings against the appellant could not have been initiated which are in terms of Section 20 (ii) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The said plea could very well be taken by the appellant and examined by the departmental authorities. The learned Single Judge has already clarified that the Competent Authority shall inquire into the issue of negligence of the appellant independently without being influenced by the observation made by the Chief Information Commissioner, Haryana. In view of the above, we find that the protection given to the appellant is fair and reasonable and takes care of the apprehensions expressed by the appellant. Appeal stands disposed of. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE 4.3.2011 preeti 2