IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3113 of 2011 Date of Decision : December 02, 2011. B.K.Jain .....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.C.S.Bagri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.R.D.Sharma, DAG, Haryana. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner was an Executive Engineer in the Irrigation Department, Haryana. He alongwith other officers/officials was involved in a corruption case registered by the State Vigilance Bureau at Rohtak vide FIR No.77 of 2002. It appears that the petitioner was also separately charge-sheeted under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 and having been found guilty of bunglings in the matter of excavation of earth work, punishment of stoppage of two annual increments was imposed upon him. The petitioner, against whom the trial in the corruption case is still pending, moved an application on 24.12.2009 (Annexure P-3) before the State Public Information Officer of the Department asking him to supply a series of information regarding pending court cases including the opinion of the Information Officer so as to quote CWP No.3113 of 2011 [2] “two main reasons” which “hold” the petitioner “guilty” but exonerates all the nine subordinates named in the FIR......” Since some of the informations were not supplied to the petitioner, he preferred an appeal before the State Information Commissioner who vide order dated 25.5.2010 (Annexure P-7) directed the respondent-authorities to give point-wise reply against the petitioner's application dated 24.12.2009 within a period of 20 days of that order. The petitioner was permitted to file rejoinder on receipt of such information. The State Information Commissioner thereafter on 27.7.2010 (Annexure P-10) observed that the respondents were not present and the petitioner made a statement that he was unable to file the rejoinder as the requisite information was not supplied to him. The State Information Commissioner consequently, issued a show cause notice to the authorities as to why penal action be not taken against them. On 5.10.2010 (Annexure P-12) the respondents explained the cause of delay in furnishing the information and the case was further adjourned to enable them to file reply to the show cause notice. The State Information Commissioner thereafter vide order dated 12.1.2011 (Annexure P-15), dropped the penal proceedings being satisfied with the explanation tendered by the respondent-authorities. The aggrieved petitioner has approached this Court. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. There are two aspects involved in this case. Firstly, whether the petitioner has been furnished the information available on record and CWP No.3113 of 2011 [3] for which he applied under the Rights to Information Act, 2005? Secondly, whether the State Information Commissioner was justified in dropping the penal proceedings against the authorities? Adverting to the second issue, in my considered view, it is the sole discretion of the State Information Commissioner to accept or reject the explanation, if any, tendered by an authority in response to the show cause notice. The State Information Commissioner having found that the delay was not intentional or deliberate and that the original records were sent to the Governor for appropriate decision on the “Memorial” submitted by the petitioner, no fault can be found with the final order dated 12.1.2011 dropping the penal proceedings. As regards the first issue, namely, non-supply of information, it is well settled that the respondent authorities cannot be compelled to 'generate' an information which is not available on record. However, if there is an information documented or discernible from the office notes, the petitioner will be well within his right to seek such an information. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a clarification that if the petitioner is still in need of any information which is available on record, he may submit an application as per the prescribed form and with requisite fee whereupon the State Information Commission is directed to provide him that information within the time stipulated under the Act and subject to permissibility of supply of such information under the Act. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. December 02, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE