THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 211 of 2010. Jagdish Chandra Kandpal, S/O Late Sri Heera Ballabh Kandpal, serving as Executive Director, Revenue Police and Land Record Survey Training Institute, Almora. … Petitioner. Vs. 1. Chief Information Commissioner, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 2. Sri Surendra Agrawal, Zila Adhyaksh, Maidani Kranti Dal, R/O 104, Ishwar Vihar, Phase-II, Raipur Road, Dehradun. …Respondents. Date February 22, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Stay Application No. 863 of 2010) Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- A. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 3-11-2009 passed by respondent no.1 (Annexure No. 13 to the writ petition) in so far as it relates to the petitioner. B. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to expunge the adverse remark made against the petitioner in the orders passed in Second Appeal No. A-1543/2009. C. To issue any other writ order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2 D. Award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the alleged so cause notice was issued to the peitioner by the respondent no.1, as has been mentioned in the impugned order but the petitioner had already been transferred from the post of Sub Divisional Magistrate Pati to the post of S.D.M. Purnagiri (Tanakpur), where he had joined on 21-2-2009. It is stated in paragraph no. 8 of the petition that show cause notice was issued to the first appellate authority but no notice was issued to the petitioner, who was posted as Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tanakpur on the relevant date while the information sought related to Sub Divisional Magistrate Pati, which ought to have been supplied by him as such. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 has given consent to decide the petition as on today without issuing notice to the respondent no.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the provision of Section 20 of the Right to Information Act 2005 has been violated in the case at hand, because no opportunity of being heard has been given to the petitioner before imposing penalty against him, therefore, the impugned order dated 3-11-2009 is not tenable against the petitioner. Proviso one appended to Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 makes it obligatory that a reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be given to the Officer concerned before any penalty is imposed against him. 3 In the case at hand, it reveals from the averments made in the writ petition that no notice was issued to the petitioner when he was posted as S.D.M. Pati and at the relevant time, he was posted as Sub Divisional Magistrate Tanakpur. Opportunity of hearing was necessary to be given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order against him, therefore, the provision of Section 20 of the said Act has been violated. The impugned order passed by the respondent no.1 thereby directing to initiation of disciplinary proceeding and imposing penalty against the petitioner is clearly hit by the principles of natural justice and fair play and on this ground alone, the same 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. The facts of the case at hand are almost similar. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 has 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 order dated 3-11-2009 passed by the respondent no.1 (Annexure-13 to the petition) is set aside. The Information Commission, Uttarakhand is directed to give a personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter, the Information Commission may pass suitable order in the matter in accordance with law. All pending applications stand disposed of. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP 4