2025:HHC:22959 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4416 of 2025 Decided on: 16.07.2025 Dr. Rikhi Ram … Petitioner Versus State Information Commissioner and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Saneev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 and 2. : Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i). That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be and the impugned order Annexure P-5 dated 28.2.2025 passed by respondent No. 1 may kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of law and justice.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner, who was serving as a Principal of Government Degree College, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, HP, was appointed as an Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry against one 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:22959 Lecturer, namely, Ajay Kumar, in the subject of physics (School Cadre). The private respondent herein was the Defence Counsel of Sh. Ajay Kumar. 3. He, i.e. Defence Assistant, in terms of Annexure P-1, called upon the petitioner to provide him a copy of preliminary enquiry report along with statement of witnesses as also other documents mentioned in the communication dated 16.10.2023. The petitioner took up the matter with the Director Higher Education and vide communication dated 26.12.2023 (Annexure P-2), the Director Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, directed the petitioner that the statement of the witnesses record in the preliminary enquiry in preliminary enquiry could be provided to the Defence Assistant but the report of the Investigating Officer, (preliminary enquiry) was subject to Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965/GOI 22(6), being a confidential document. Private respondent demanded information under the Right to Information Act from the petitioner vide communication dated 13.05.2024. 4. Feeling aggrieved by non-supply of requisite information, the private respondent filed an appeal under the Right to Information Act, i.e. Appeal No. 34 of 2023/24, titled as Santosh Kumar vs. PIO-cum-Principal, Govt. College Sarkaghat. In terms of Annexure P-3, the appeal was allowed by the First Appellate Authority in the following terms:- “The appellant vide his RTI applications dated 3 2025:HHC:22959 13.05.2024 had sought information under RTI Act, 2005. The Case was fixed for hearing on 25.06.2024 in the office chamber of the undersigned. The appellant was present. PIO was also present. The appellant in his appeal submitted that being a Defence Assistant of Sh. Ajay Kumar, Charged official, GSSS Jahu, Distt. Hamirpur, HP he had demanded information from the PIO-cum-Principal, Govt. College Sarkaghat, regarding copy of preliminary inquiry report initiated under Rule 14 of CCS (CCS) Rules, 1965 alongwith the witnesses recorded during the preliminary inquiry by the Inquiry Officer-cum-Principal, Govt. College Sarkaghat. But the information has not been provided to him by the concerned PIO. Applicant further stated that the response to his application the relevant rule quoted by PIO in page No. 134 to 37 Swamy's Handbook on CCS(CCA) were not found and he has never asked for such rules. In his statement, it is also stated that information provided to him was also not in accordance with the provision of Act and documents so provided was not even signed by PIO. PIO in his statement stated that the information as sought by the applicant has not been supplied being the matter of inquiry and he has sought guidelines from the disciplinary authority i.e. Director of Higher Education. The Director Higher Education vide his letter dated 26.12.2023 mentioning therein that preliminary inquiry report is subject to Rule 14 of 4 2025:HHC:22959 GOI 22(6) being confidential document. Hence Documents i.e. statements of witness can be provided vide GOI 22(7) under Rule-14. The said information was provided to the applicant through email on dated 29.05.2024. During the course of hearing. appellant-stated that information provided to him was not available in the reference book made in ibid letter, The Branch Supdt., inquiry cell of this Directorate admitted the fact that wrong information has been supplied to the PIO and apologised for his act. He further stated that correct information will be provided to the applicant. Having gone through the case, it is found that the information provided by the PIO was not relevant and wrong concerned branch of the Directorate is hereby warned not to repeat such act in future. Therefore, appeal is accepted. PIO is hereby directed to provide the correct relevant information to the appellant, free of cost, immediately. Should however, the Appellant feel aggrieved with this order, he is at liberty to prefer 2nd Appeal before the Ld. State Information Commission at Shimla within statutory period of limitation. Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The file may be consigned the record room after doing the needful. A copy of the order also be provided to the parties.” 5. The petitioner preferred an appeal against said order before the State Information Commission, which was dismissed vide order (Annexure P-5), dated 28.02.2025, in the following terms:- 5 2025:HHC:22959 “The appeal titled as Sh. Santosh Kumar, Village Chamyanu, PO Nabahi, Tehsil Sarkaghat, Distt. Mandi V/s PIO-cum- Principal, Govt. Degree College Sarkaghat, Distt. Mandi, was taken up for hearing today. The appellant is present and Sh. Rikhi Ram, PIO-cum-Principal, Govt. Degree college Sarkaghat Mandi is also present. The appellant had vide his RTI application dated 13.05.2024 sought the following information:- "I am the Defense Assistant of Shri Ajay Kumar Lect. 08SS Jabr tele Hamirpur 01.Pa in the proceedings ngrint tim under Rule 14 of CCS ECCAS les 1905. A copy of DHE letter No EDN-HE125B15-V-728/2022 dated 12.2023 has been provided by you to the defence wherein a has been mentioned at the preliminary inquiry report is subject to Hule 14 GOI 2216) being confidential cument provided mention not made in article of charge. The statements of witnesses can be provided vide GOI 22(7) under rule 14. In view of the above you are requested that copy of "Rule 14 GOI 22(6) and GOI 22(7) under Rule 14" may kindly se provided to me under the provisions of RTI Act 2005 as the same are material for letence of the charged officer." The PIO sent a reply to the appellant vide dated 27.05.2024, denying the information with the reason that required information is not found in CCS, CCA Rule Book 2017. Being dis-satisfied with the reply of the PIO, he filed first appeal 6 2025:HHC:22959 before the FAA-cum-Additional Director (Admin.) vide dated 05.06.20254 which was decided vide order dated 25.06.2024 directing the PIO to provide the correct and relevant information to the appellant free of cost immediately. Both the parties were heard in detail. The appellant in grounds of appeal prayed that he has been put to unnecessarily harassment by the PIO and correct information has not been provided to him. The PIO-cup-Principal Govt. College Sarkaghat was unable to reply for cause of delay and not providing the information in correct form and is perhaps unaware of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, a strict warning is issued to the PIO-cum-Principal Govt. College Sarkaghat who misinterpreted the contents of the RTI application and did not provide the information in correct form. The PIO-cum-Principal Govt. College Sarkaghat, has put the appellant to unnecessary harassment, therefore, a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- is awarded to the appellant as per provisions U/s 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005 for causing unnecessary harassment and denying the correct information to the appellant as per the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. The PIO is further directed to provide the sought for information to the appellant within a period of 15 days from the passing of this order free of cost under intimation to this Commission. With these directions this second appeal is accordingly closed. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned and file be consigned to the record room.” 7 2025:HHC:22959 6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law for the reason that there was no occasion for the private respondent to have had sought any information from the petitioner in his capacity as Inquiry Officer under the Right to Information Act and this extremely important aspect of the matter has been ignored by the Authorities while passing the impugned orders. 8. On the other hand learned Counsel for the private respondent submitted the Court that in terms of Annexure R-1, appended with the reply dated 13.05.2024, information was sought by the Defence Assistant Santosh Kumar from the petitioner, in his capacity as PIO-cum-Principal (Inquiry Officer), which was not provided by the petitioner in terms of the provisions of the Right to Information Act and therefore, there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the Authorities. Learned Counsel also submitted that the petitioner was Public Authority, as defined under the Right to Information Act and in these circumstances, there was no infirmity in the orders passed by the Authorities when the petitioner had failed to provide information under the Right to Information Act. 9. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties and having carefully perused the impugned orders, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the orders passed by the State Information 8 2025:HHC:22959 Commissioner as well as the First Appellate Authority, are perverse and not sustainable in the eyes of law. 10. The Right to Information Act has been enacted to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority etc. ‘Public Authority’ has been defined under Section 2(h) of the Act, which reads as under:- “2(h). “public authority means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted,-- (a) By or under the Constitution; (b) By any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by State Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any— (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-Government Organisation substantially financed directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government; 11. ‘Record’ has been defined under Section 2(i) of the Act, which reads as under:- “(i) "record" includes— (a) any document, manuscript and file; (b) any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a document; (c) any reproduction of image or images embodied in such microfilm 9 2025:HHC:22959 (whether enlarged or not); and (d) any other material produced by a computer or any other device;” 12. ‘Right to Information’ has been defined under 2(j) of the Act, which reads as under:- “2 (j) "right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to— (i) inspection of work, documents, records; (ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; (iii) taking certified samples of material; (iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;” 13. Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, provides for request for obtaining information. Section 7 deals with the disposal of the request. Thus, the scheme of the Act is that a person, who seeks information, has to seek the same by way of a request inter alia to a State Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer. State Public Information Officer has been defined under Section 2(m) of the Act and the designation of the Public Information Officer is provided under Section 5 of the Act. 14. Now in the backdrop of said statutory provisions, if one considers the facts of the present case, herein the petitioner, who 10 2025:HHC:22959 was the Principal of R&T Government College Sarkaghat, was called upon to act as an Inquiry Officer in the Departmental Proceedings which were initiated against one Ajay Kumar. Now incidentally, though the petitioner in his capacity as a Principal of R&T Government Degree College, Sarkaghat, was a PIO with regard to the information that was there, relating to the college of which he was a Principal, however, by no stretch of imagination, he was a PIO with regard to the inquiry proceedings which he was conducting in his capacity as an inquiry officer. Therefore, no document could have been sought from the petitioner by the private respondent in the capacity of the petitioner as an Inquiry Officer under the provisions of the Right to Information Act. The Defence Assistant could have sought these documents under the provisions of the CCS/CCA Rules but not under the Right to Information Act. 15. This extremely important aspect of the matter has been ignored by the Authorities who have passed the impugned orders. As the petitioner, in his capacity as the Inquiry Officer, was not the Public Information Officer vis-à-vis the Inquiry proceedings being conducted by him, his act of supply or non-supply of any document could not have been scrutinized under the provisions of the right to Information Act. 16. The private respondent, in fact, has abused the provisions of the Right to Information Act by firstly demanding the information from an Inquiry Officer, who was conducting the inquiry 11 2025:HHC:22959 under the CCS/CCA Rules under the provisions of the Right to Information Act and thereafter, dragging him by way of appeal before the first Appellate Authority. 17. Not only this, both the authorities who have passed the impugned orders, rather than firstly going into this important aspect of the matter as to whether the petitioner was a Public Information Officer or not have decided the case, without any due application of mind, which indeed, has led to grave injustice to the petitioner. 18. The petitioner was not obliged to supply any information to the private respondent under the Right to Information Act. No appeal was maintainable under the provisions of the Right to Information Act against the act of the petitioner of not supplying certain documents to the Defence Assistant, may be for whatever reasons. Thus, the order was passed by the Appellate Authority, in terms of Annexure P-3, dated 10.07.2023, is bad being void ab initio. Similarly, the State Information Commissioner also erred in not appreciating this extremely important aspect of the matter and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner without any due application of judicial mind. Said authorities erred in not appreciating that every demand of information or document cannot be construed to be under the Right to Information Act. Every refusal or non-supply of document does not attract the provisions of the Right to Information Act. The Authorities being quasi-judicial authorities are expected to act with due caution which is missing in 12 2025:HHC:22959 the present case. 19. Accordingly, in light of these observations, this writ petition is allowed. Order dated 28.02.2025, passed by State Information Commissioner (Annexure P-5), is held to be bad and is quashed as such set aside and similarly, order dated 25.06.2024 passed by First Appellate Authority is also quashed and set aside and respondent No. 3 is directed to compensate the petitioner by payment of the cost of Rs. 25,000/-. The writ petition is disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 16, 2025 (narender)