P&H High Court Upholds Increment Stoppage Against Official For Non-Compliance With PIO's Directions Under RTI Act
The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed two pleas challenging disciplinary proceedings and a consequent penalty imposed on a Section Officer of the Punjab State Planning Board for failing to comply with the directions of a Public Information Officer (PIO) under the Right to Information Act, 2005. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 248]It rejected the contention that the RTI Act's own statutory...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed two pleas challenging disciplinary proceedings and a consequent penalty imposed on a Section Officer of the Punjab State Planning Board for failing to comply with the directions of a Public Information Officer (PIO) under the Right to Information Act, 2005. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 248]
It rejected the contention that the RTI Act's own statutory mechanism precluded resort to disciplinary action under the applicable service rules.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil said, "The argument that the provisions of the Right to Information Act constitute a complete code and, therefore, disciplinary proceedings could not have been initiated under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, is also misconceived. The RTI Act governs the statutory mechanism relating to dissemination of information and consequences flowing from violations thereof."
The Court added that the present proceedings, however, are founded upon misconduct committed by a Government servant in the discharge of his official duties and, therefore, the respondents were fully competent to invoke the disciplinary jurisdiction under the applicable service rules. Both enactments operate in distinct fields and are not mutually exclusive.
The petitioner, Arun Kumar, while serving as Section Officer, was issued a charge-sheet dated 23.09.2013 under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, alleging that he had disobeyed the PIO's directions by not furnishing information sought under an RTI application.
During the pendency of the departmental enquiry, the charge-sheet was amended in April 2014 to correct the date of the RTI application from 13.03.2013 to 22.04.2013. The petitioner replied to both the original and amended charge-sheets.
The Enquiry Officer, a retired District and Sessions Judge, submitted a report on 17.09.2014 holding the charges proved, which culminated in a punishment order dated 11.02.2021 imposing stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect. The petitioner challenged the charge-sheets, the enquiry report and the punishment order, along with all consequential proceedings, by way of two writ petitions, which were disposed of by a common order since they raised an identical question of law.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that amending the charge-sheet after commencement of the enquiry was impermissible under the 1970 Rules, and that the petitioner, who had merely placed his opinion before the competent authority, was neither the PIO himself nor guilty of disobeying any statutory direction.
It was contended that the enquiry report was based on conjecture, that witness statements were not supplied along with the charge-sheet, and that the proceedings violated natural justice and Article 311 of the Constitution.
It was further argued that the RTI Act, being a complete code with its own mechanism for lapses in furnishing information, precluded resort to disciplinary proceedings, and that after the petitioner's repatriation to his parent department, the respondents lacked jurisdiction to continue the proceedings or impose punishment. The penalty itself was assailed as arbitrary and disproportionate.
The State submitted that the punishment order followed due procedure under the 1970 Rules and was based on the Enquiry Officer's findings of misconduct. It was pointed out that upon the petitioner's repatriation, the Department of Personnel had sought the opinion of the Legal Remembrancer on the question of the competent disciplinary authority, and that the parent department, acting on that advice , had lawfully imposed the punishment as the competent punishing authority.
The Court rejected the petitioner's contentions and held that the correction of the RTI application's date was a mere rectification of a clerical error that left the substance of the charge, non-compliance with the PIO's directions, unchanged; since the petitioner was supplied the amended charge-sheet and given an opportunity to reply, and no demonstrable prejudice was shown, the amendment did not vitiate the proceedings.
On the merits of the charge, the Court noted that the petitioner, as the Section Officer processing the RTI matter, was required to ensure compliance with the PIO's directions, but had instead proposed withholding the information despite clear directions to furnish it.
Emphasising that a writ court exercising judicial review under Article 226 does not sit as an appellate authority over departmental enquiry findings and cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or reached in violation of natural justice, the Court declined to interfere with the Enquiry Officer's finding of negligence and disobedience.
On natural justice, the Court held that the petitioner had been served with both charge-sheets, had participated in the enquiry, submitted replies, and been given adequate opportunity to defend himself; mere dissatisfaction with the Enquiry Officer's conclusions could not be equated with denial of a fair hearing, particularly absent any demonstrated prejudice.
Rejecting the "complete code" argument, the Court held that the RTI Act governs the statutory consequences of violations relating to information dissemination, whereas the present proceedings were founded on misconduct by a government servant in the discharge of official duties, the two operating in distinct fields that are not mutually exclusive, leaving the respondents fully competent to invoke disciplinary jurisdiction under the service rules.
On jurisdiction post-repatriation, the Court found that the Department of Personnel had appropriately sought the Legal Remembrancer's opinion, and that the punishment order was passed by the parent department after being advised that it was the competent authority following repatriation, leaving no infirmity of jurisdiction.
The Court further held that stoppage of a single annual increment with cumulative effect was not so disproportionate to the proved misconduct as to shock the conscience of the Court, reiterating that judicial review extends to the decision-making process rather than the merits of the punishment itself, absent a showing of outrageous disproportionality or arbitrariness.
Finding that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with law, that the Enquiry Officer's findings were supported by evidence, and that no violation of statutory provisions or natural justice had been established, the Court held that no ground for interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution was made out, and dismissed both writ petitions.
Title: Arun Kumar v. State of Punjab and others
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Sukhwinder Singh Sudan, Advocate
Counsel for the State: Mr. TPS Walia, AAG, Punjab