Punishment U/S 20 RTI Act Can Be Imposed Only When Deliberate Obstruction/ Delay In Providing Information: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that punishment under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 can only be imposed if there is deliberate obstruction or delay in supplying information sought under the RTI Act. It cannot be imposed based on rushed or prejudged decisions which compromise statutory safeguards or rule of law. Referring to Section 20 of the Right to Information Act,...
The Allahabad High Court has held that punishment under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 can only be imposed if there is deliberate obstruction or delay in supplying information sought under the RTI Act. It cannot be imposed based on rushed or prejudged decisions which compromise statutory safeguards or rule of law.
Referring to Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi held,
“Upon a careful reading of the above provision, it becomes evident that the power to impose penalty is not for every delay or deficiency in furnishing information. The provision mandates that the Commission must first form an opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has acted without reasonable cause in refusing to receive the application, in failing to furnish information within the stipulated time, or has acted mala fide, knowingly furnished incorrect or misleading information, destroyed the requested information, or otherwise obstructed its disclosure. The existence of one of these jurisdictional facts is a necessary condition for the imposition of penalty.”
Applicant filed an application under RTI Act seeking some information regarding duplicate passports, submission forms, procedures and time limits. Petitioner, posted as Regional Passport Officer (RPO), as well as Public Information Officer (PIO) in Ghaziabad, received the file. The application was returned to the applicant since the demand draft was in incorrect name.
The applicant corrected and submitted the demand draft along with the application. Petitioner sought the “Key number” and “File number” from the applicant without which website could not be operated. Aggrieved on not receiving the information, the applicant lodged a complaint under Section 18 of RTI Act.
Two orders were passed by the Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission, holding the petitioner guilty of not providing the information within 4 months, not providing a satisfaction note, initiating inquiry against the petitioner, holding him guilty and imposing severe penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on him.
Petitioner challenged these order on grounds that they were premeditated and the CIC did not wait for the inquiry report of the Chief Passport Officer before recommending disciplinary action and punishment against him. Petitioner pleaded that delay, if any, was caused due to shortage of staff, back-log of work at the Regional Passport Office at Ghaziabad.
The Court held that though opportunity of hearing is to be provided to the PIO, the burden to prove that the duty was carried out with diligence is on the officer. It further held that such shifting of burden does not discharge the Commission from the duty of recording clear reasons showing lack of reasonable cause or malafide on part of the officer.
Observing that objective consideration must precede imposition of penalty under Section 20, the Court held that
“Recommendations under Section 20 is intended to guide the administration and facilitate corrective action, however, when expressed in mandatory and time-bound language, they risk assuming the character of a binding direction. The statute does not empower the Commission to issue directions that override the discretion or functions of the administrative authorities. To make recommendations of binding nature would be seen as extension of the Commission's powers beyond the statutory scheme.”
The Court observed that at no stage a finding was recorded against the petitioner regarding deliberate intent of not supplying information to the applicant. It observed that infrastructure issues were stated as reasons for the delay which were not attributable to the petitioner.
“The enquiry report, submitted on 21.03.2007, clearly establishes that any inadvertent lapses, if at all, were attributable to severe shortage of staff, increased work pressure, and the extraordinary volume of applications being processed daily at the Regional Passport Office, Ghaziabad, and not due to any mala fide, deliberate, or intentional conduct by the petitioner.”
Accordingly, the Court held that imposition of maximum monetary penalty/ punishment on the petitioner was arbitrary and the respondent authority had already formed a prejudicial view against the petitioner even before proper inquiry was conducted.
Against the observations of the CIC in the impugned order stating that it had the power to dismiss ill-behaved bureaucrats, the Court observed
“The language used in both impugned orders travel far beyond consideration of statutory defaults under Section 20 of the RTI Act and indicates a lack of impartiality, reflecting that the penalty and disciplinary recommendation were influenced by bias and personal disapprobation, rather than grounded in reasoned findings. Such conduct may give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias or pre-judgment, thereby offending the principles of natural justice. Fairness, and due consideration of evidence are indispensable before any punitive or consequential action is taken.”
Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, and the impugned punishment orders were quashed.
Case Title: Shailesh Kumar Yadav Ips Versus Union Of India And Others