Balwinder Singh vs State of Punjab

Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.—In this Letters Patent Appeal, challenge is to the order dated 24.7.2013 passed by learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant against the order dated 24.5.2011 passed by the State Information Commissioner, Punjab, directing the Principal, ITI Hoshiarpur to lodge an FIR against Shri Balwinder Singh, Clerk for the loss of government record, has been dismissed. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved, as narrated in the appeal, may be noticed. Respondent No. 3 Balraj Kumar sought some information from respondent No. 4-Principal, Industrial Training Institute, Hoshiarpur under Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short, "the Act") and on being supplied incomplete information, respondent No. 3 filed appeal before the appellate authority. During the pendency of the appeal, the Public Information Officer Shri Kehar Singh filed an affidavit to the effect that the appellant had not supplied complete information and thus the same could not be supplied to respondent No. 3. On the basis of the said statement, the appellant was asked to file an affidavit. The appellant apprised the appellate authority regarding the factual position that he was never asked to provide any information as he was working in Accounts Branch and had never dealt with any RTI application as the same was a totally different department. The appellant further submitted that Smt. Bhupinder Kaur was to supply the information being the concerned dealing Clerk. On enquiry, it was found that the appellant had snatched the record and thus the requisite information could not be supplied to the applicant-respondent No. 3. On that basis, the appellate authority granted compensation of Rs. 4000/- to respondent No. 3 and further directed lodging of FIR against the appellant and recommended disciplinary action against him. The appellant challenged the said order by filing Civil Writ Petition in this Court. Vide order dated 24.7.2013, impugned herein, the writ petition was dismissed. Hence the present appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that u/s 20(2) of the Act, the only penalty which could be imposed by the State Information Commissioner, was with regard to taking of disciplinary action as per service rules against the appellant. According to the learned counsel, lodging of an FIR. against the appellant as directed by the State Information Commissioner, vide order dated May 24, 2011, was totally without jurisdiction.

Learned counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the State Information Commissioner and as upheld by the learned Single Judge.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find merit in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant.

Section 20 of the Act provides for penalties in case of non compliance of the provisions of the Act: Sub section (2) which is relevant for the present purpose reads thus:-

Penalties.- (1) xxx

(2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under subsection (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him.

A plain reading of Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act shows that where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer has failed to furnish information within the time specified under sub section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information officer or the State Public Information officer under the service rules. However, the said provision nowhere envisages that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission can issue any direction for lodging of FIR against the person who has failed to comply with the provisions of the Act in supplying the information to the person seeking such information. The State Information Commissioner and the learned Single Judge were, thus, not right in holding that Principal, ITI Hoshiarpur shall lodge an FIR against Balwinder Singh-appellant for the loss of record. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal is allowed to the extent that in para 12 of the order dated 24.5.2011 passed by the State Information Commissioner, the following direction to the Principal ITI, Hoshiarpur for lodging of FIR is hereby quashed:-

Principal, ITI Hoshiarpur is directed to lodge an FIR against Shri Balwinder Singh Clerk for the loss of Govt. record.

It will be open for the appropriate authority to take proceedings in accordance with law.

The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.