CWP No. 14374 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 11.02.2011 Major (Ex.) Shaveta Sharma Nagarkoti ...Petitioner versus State Information Commission Haryana, Chandigarh & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Narender Singh, D.A.G., Haryana for respondent No. 1 Mr.Narender Sura, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral) The epitome of facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that one Rajender Singh Yadav (respondent No.5) moved an application dated 24.10.2007 to the State Public Information Officer- cum-Estate Officer-1, HUDA, Gurgaon respondent No.3 (for brevity “the SPIO”) and sought the informations mentioned therein, in view of the provisions of The Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). As the informations were not supplied, therefore, he (respondent No. 5) filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority-cum Administrator,HUDA, Gurgaon (for short “the FAA”) (respondent No.2) on 21.2.2008. Still, the SPIO did not supply the information despite the order of the FAA in this context. 2. Aggrieved by the action of not supplying the informations by the SPIO and FAA, respondent No.5 filed the second appeal, which was accepted by the State Information Commission (for brevity “the SIC”), by virtue of order dated 06.08.2008 (Annexure P1), which, in substance, is as under:- CWP No. 14374 of 2010 2 “In view of the conflicting stands, the following directions are hereby given in this case:- 1. The SPIO-cum-Estate Officer-1, HUDA, Gurgaon shall himself visit the spot before the 26the August, 2008 to verify the facts of the case after which a proper reply shall be sent to the Appellant about the action already taken/proposed to be taken in this case. A copy of the reply shall also be endorsed to the commission for record.” 3. As this direction was not complied with, therefore, in pursuance of a show cause notice dated 01.12.2008 (Annexure P-2) issued by the SIC, the SPIO appeared and explained the matter and the SIC passed the impugned order dated 02.09.2009 (Annexure P-3). 4. In the wake of the impugned order (Annexure P-3), the SPIO-cum- Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon sought explanation from the petitioner, who was working at the relevant time as Sub Divisional Engineer, by way of letter dated 01.06.2010 (Annexure P-4), to which, she filed the reply dated 13.07.2010 (Annexure P-5), in this regard. 5. Although, no adverse order has yet been passed by the Estate Officer, the petitioner still did not feel satisfied and instituted the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned order (Annexure P3), invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. That is how I am seized of the matter. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record, with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this respect. 7. However, ex facie arguments of learned counsel, that the petitioner was not the SPIO and since no notice was issued to her by the SIC, so the impugned order (Annexure P-3) is illegal and arbitrary, are not only devoid of merits but misplaced as well. 8. As is evident from the record, that having explained the matter by CWP No. 14374 of 2010 3 the SPIO, the SIC passed the impugned order (Annexure P-3), the operative part of which is as under:- “After a careful consideration of the matter the Commission finds that the chronology of events as mentioned by Shri Vatsal Vashisht, SPIO-cum-Estate Officer-1, HUDA, Gurgaon is factually correct. He has also annexed photocopies of the office notings in this regard, a perusal of which shows the careless manner in which such important matters are handled in the Estate Office. It is strange that a notice under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act which has to be answered in his personal capacity by the SPIO is not even shown to him and the matter is put up to him a day before the date fixed for the hearing. Nobody in the Estate Officer seems to be understand that a Show Cause Notice has to be replied by the officer concerned to explain the delay which has taken place in furnishing the information and even it has to be dealt by the office it has to be done in a time bound manner. In the instant case since matter was never put up to him on time a reply also could not be furnished and in the meanwhile he also got transferred from the seat. However, responsibility needs to be fixed for the way in which the Show Cause Notice was handled by the Deputy Superintendent as well as the SDE (Survey)/JE and this action to keep the Estate Officer-1, HUDA, Gurgaon completely in the dark about the receipt and the action to be taken on the Show Cause Notice. The following direction are hereby given in this case:- 1. Penal proceedings initiated against Shri Vatsal Vashisht, the then SPIO-cum-Estate Officer -1, HUDA, Gurgaon (presently posted as LAO, Gurgaon) under section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 are hereby dropped. 2. The present Estate Officer-1, HUDA, Gurgaon shall initiate action against the Deputy Superintendent as well as the SDE (Survey)/JE concerned for the irresponsible way in which the Show Cause Notice was dealt with in the Estate Officer. A compliance report with regard to the action initiated shall be sent to the Commissioner by 05.10.2009”. 9. Meaning thereby, the petitioner was not found to be guilty in any manner for not supplying the information but she was held negligent to deal with the Show Cause Notice (Annexure P-2) in discharge of his official duties. The SIC CWP No. 14374 of 2010 4 has only directed the Estate Officer, HUDA to initiate action (proceeding) against her as well as Deputy Superintendent, in this relevant connection and not otherwise. 10. Not only that, the Estate Officer, HUDA only sought the explanation, vide letter (Annexure P-4), to which, the petitioner filed reply (Annexure P-5). The Estate Officer/Enquiry Officer is yet to complete the inquiry and to pass an order in regard to the failure, to deal with the Show Cause Notice (Annexure P-2) in discharging of official duties of the petitioner as well as Deputy Superintendent. Therefore, the petitioner cannot possibly be termed to be an aggrieved party in the capacity of the SPIO under the Act, as urged on her behalf. She was found lacking in performance of her official duty for which a separate action has already been initiated by the Estate Officer. If the Estate Officer would pass any adverse order against the petitioner departmentally, then she may avail her departmental remedy, in accordance with law. 11. Needless to mention here, that the Estate Officer HUDA will inquire in to the stated negligence of the petitioner independently, without being influenced, in any manner, from the impugned order (Annexure P-3). 12. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge February 11, 2011 AS Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes/No