2025:JHHC:12040 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No.5464 of 2011 ------ Rakesh Kumar Pandey son of Sri Krishna Pandey, resident of Matri Aashram, Jamtara, P.O. & P.S. Jamtara, District Jamtara .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Jharkhand State Information Commission, Engineering Hostel No.2, Jharkhand State Information Commission, HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi 3. The Secretary, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Engineering Hostel No.2, Jharkhand State Information Commission, HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi 4. Sri Narendra Hembram son of Sri Yogeshwar Hembram, resident of Village Bhogikata, P.O. & P.S. Bindapathar, District Jamtara 5. Sri Masodi Tuddu, son of not known, presently posted as Block Education Extension Officer, Nala, P.O. & P.S. Nala, District Jamtara .... .... .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kumar Prasad, Advocate For the JSIC : Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate ------ Order No.20 / Dated : 23.04.2025 Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 19.04.2011 passed in Appeal No.1015/2010 whereby and whereunder penalty of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed as penalty and Rs 60,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the information seeker by the Information Commissioner. 2. On 10.09.2009, the information seeker-Village Pradhan sought information from the Public Information Commissioner-cum- District Superintendent of Education, Jamtara. When the information given was found unsatisfactory, the information seeker preferred First Appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara on 29.03.2010 and the appeal was dismissed by the order dated 03.04.2010. 3. Against the dismissal of the appeal, the petitioner preferred Second Appeal before the Jharkhand State Information Commission on 24.06.2010 in which penalty has been imposed on the petitioner for not furnishing 2025:JHHC:12040 2 requisite information. 4. Instant writ petition has been preferred mainly on two grounds. Firstly, that at the time when the information was sought by the information seeker, the petitioner was not serving as a Public Information Officer, Jamtara and further when the appeal was also filed at that time also he was not serving as P.I.O. In support of this contention, memo no.285 dated 21.06.2010 issued by Jharkhand Education Project has been filed which shows that the appointment of this petitioner as P.I.O. by the said notification dated 18.06.2010. 5. It is further submitted that the Commission vide order dated 09.07.2010 (Annexure-B) appointed Masodi Tuddu as Deemed Information Officer for giving relevant information in the case for the reason that at the relevant time on the said date, Masodi Tuddu, was serving as Block Education Extension Officer (Annexure- 12). 6. It has not been disputed by the learned counsel on behalf the State Commission that the information related to Block Extension Officer, Nala, Jamtara, where this petitioner was not posted at the time when the matter was pending before Commission. It is also not in dispute that the specific order passed by the Commission, Masodi Tuddu, who was serving as Block Education Extension Officer of the concerned Block, was accepted as a Deemed Information Officer. 7. In this view of the matter, it is strange and surprising that the petitioner was neither Public Information Officer when the information was sought, nor he was officiating as P.I.O. when the First Appeal was filed, and the Commission by its own order has held Masodi Tuddu to be the deemed P.I.O., then why the petitioner has been inflicted with penalty. The impugned order is unsustainable and is, set aside. 8. So far as the compensation is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manohar Vs. State of Maharashra, (2012) 13 SCC 14 has held that the Information Commission has been vested with wide powers which includes imposition of penalty or taking of disciplinary action against the employees. Exercise of such power entails civil consequence and, therefore, the provisions relating to penalty needs to be strictly construed. In 2025:JHHC:12040 3 the present case, as discussed above, the penalty has been imposed under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act on the petitioner who was not even serving as P.I.O. at the relevant time. The award of compensation without corresponding finding on issue of mental torture, agony etc. is also equally unsustainable and is, accordingly, set aside. Writ Petition is allowed. Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit