IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9012 of 2009 Ramnath Prasad, Son of Late Sohar Prasad, Aged about 48 years, Village Lalganj, P.O. Sehara, PS Paliganj, District Patna. ------- Petitioner. Versus 1. Bihar State Information Commission through the State Information Commissioner, 4th Floor, Soochana Bhawan, Baily Road, Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Patna. 3. The Block Education Extension Officer, Masaurhi, Patna. 4. The Block Development Officer, Dhanaruah, Patna. ------ Respondents. For the petitioner : Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Advocate Mr. Samir Kumar, Advocate For the State Information Commission : Mr. Lalit Kishore, A.A.G. 1 Ms. Vinita Singh, A.C. to A.A.G. 1 For the State : Mr. Atal Bihari Pandey, A.C. to A.A.G. 12. ----------- 4 25.10.2011 Heard the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.5.2009, passed in Case No. 7955 of 2008- 09 wherein penalty of Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed on the petitioner, Panchayat Secretary under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act. The petitioner was required to furnish the appointment relating to Panchayat Teachers in Noora Panchayat, Block Masaurhi. He was to furnish the merit list, the applications received, certified copies of the appointments made of the Panchayat Shiksha Mitra and the proceeding register relating to the appointment of Shiksha Mitra in the year 2003. Admittedly the petitioner had joined in Noora Panchayat on 5.11.2004 and was no manner 2 responsible for making appointments which were sought to be challenged and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner had any motive for retaining the register or that he had deliberately not produced it. At the initial stage itself, the petitioner produced the merit list, the applications and the certified copies of the appointments of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra of the year 2003. He however, did not produce the documents requisitioned. At the stage of second appeal, he took a stand that he could not produce the proceeding register as the Block Education Extension Officer, Masaurhi, Patna had verbally asked for the register and thereafter it has become traceless. An explanation was sought, enquiry made in which the petitioner was found guilty and imposed the aforesaid punishment. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bihar State Information Commission, respondent no. 1 submits that Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 provides that if the State Officer does not furnish the information within time specified under sub- section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information 3 or destroyed information which was the subject matter of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, shall be imposed fine of Rs. 250/- each date till application is received or information is furnished. On perusal of Sections and the enquiry report which has been rejected on the ground that the Block Education Extension Officer, Masaurhi, Patna denies that he received any document from the petitioner, the Commission has come to a finding that the petitioner should be imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. This Court on perusal of the Sections has come to a finding that the grounds on which punishment can be imposed is that there should be a finding that withholding of information was mala fide or was knowingly done or that incorrect information was given or that incomplete or misleading information was given or that the information was destroyed would lead to the said punishment. Giving of incorrect information or furnishing false or misleading information or for that matter if the information is deliberately withheld for mala fide reasons, or, this Court may say to the extent of saying, that the incumbent by withholding the information purports to protect himself for acts done by him, 4 this Court would have held that such withholding of information should be punished with the maximum punishment. In the present case virtually the petitioner had provided the merit list and the marks which is the basis on which appointments were made, the applications filed on behalf of all the incumbents which would indicate that the merit list and the applications filed would tally with each other virtually disclose as to whether the procedure followed in making appointment of Panchayat Teachers was in accordance with law. In the circumstances, this Court finds that the maximum punishment imposed on the petitioner is unreasonable. This Court, therefore, remands this matter back to the Commissioner, respondent no. 1 to reduce quantum of punishment imposed on the petitioner. This Court will suggest that it should not be more than Rs. 10,000/-. This writ application is thus, disposed of. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)