Court holds that disciplinary proceedings and penalty under RTI Act cannot be sustained when officers were not Public Information Officers during the RTI application period and had submitted replies; order passed without proper consideration of posting records and vagueness of information sought set aside.
In a significant judgment delivered on October 5, 2026, the Chhattisgarh High Court has quashed the penalty and disciplinary proceedings initiated against two government officers, Smt. Hemlata Dahariya and Smt. Durga Sahu, relating to an RTI application filed in 2018. The writ petition was filed challenging the order of the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission dated April 19, 2021, which directed the initiation of disciplinary action and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioners under Section 20(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The case arose from an RTI application dated June 18, 2018, filed by Shri Govind Patel seeking information about ponds and encroachments in Nagar Panchayat, Dhamdha. The initial Public Information Officer was Shri Jageshwar Kaushal. However, the petitioner officers were implicated as they were considered responsible for non-supply of information.
Upon scrutiny, the Court found that neither of the petitioners was posted as Public Information Officer at the relevant time when the RTI application or the first appeal dated July 19, 2018, was filed. Official posting records revealed that Smt. Durga Sahu was posted only from July 31, 2018, to August 16, 2018, and Smt. Hemlata Dahariya joined after August 16, 2018. Both petitioners had submitted their replies to the Information Commission, clarifying their non-involvement during the initial period, but the Commission had erroneously proceeded on the premise that no replies were filed.
The Court observed that the State Information Commission failed to consider these posting details and the submitted replies and also overlooked that the information sought by the applicant was vague and lacked particulars necessary for furnishing precise information. The Commission's order was thus found to be based on non-application of mind and factual inaccuracies.
Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the order dated April 19, 2021, and setting aside the penalty and any consequential disciplinary action. The Court also recognized the prejudice caused to the petitioners' career prospects due to the wrongful initiation of disciplinary proceedings.
This judgment underscores the importance of correctly identifying responsible officers in RTI matters and ensuring that penalties and disciplinary actions are not imposed in error. It also highlights the need for Information Commissions to carefully evaluate the clarity of information sought and the replies submitted before imposing penalties.
Bottom Line:
Right to Information Act, 2005 - Penalty and direction for disciplinary proceedings against Public Information Officers cannot be sustained when they were not posted during the relevant period of RTI application and had in fact submitted replies before the State Information Commission - Penalty order passed without considering posting details, replies on record and vagueness of information sought is liable to be quashed.
Statutory provision(s):
Right to Information Act, 2005 Section 20(2), Constitution of India, Article 226
