- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31893 WP No. 8154 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 8154 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. H. S. JAGADEESHA, SON OF H. S. SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.B-4, POLICE QUARTERS, 15TH MAIN, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 057. PRESENTLY WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, BANGALORE. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.VENKATESH S ARBATTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION, #336, 2ND GATE, III FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. SRI. A. R. S. KUMAR, ADVOCATE, POST BOX NO.2742, BANGALORE - 560 027. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31893 WP No. 8154 of 2018 (BY SRI. G.B.SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.AKKAMAHADEVI HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH BY A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTEHR APPROPRIATE WRIT, OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT, THE ORDER DATED 22.05.2015 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN KIC 7149 PTN 2013 DATED 22.5.2015 VIDE ANNEX-F IN SO FAR AS IT LEVIES FINE ON THE PETITIONER AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioner is before this court being aggrieved by the order dated 22.05.2015 passed by Respondent no. 1 imposing penalty of ₹10,000/- on his purported refusal to submit explanation or furnish the information as sought for with a further direction to recover the said penalty from his salary and allowances. 2. Facts in the case are that the petitioner was working as Inspector of Police, Banashankari Police Station at Bangalore between 30.09.2013 and 15.05.2015 and he was also discharging his duties and functions as Public Information Officer under the Right to Information Act. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31893 WP No. 8154 of 2018 3. Respondent no. 2 had made an application on 01.03.2013 seeking information regarding Action Taken Report/ Investigation Report pursuant to a complaint which was apparently filed by one S.C.Shivamma. In response to the said application, the predecessor of the petitioner herein had issued a communication dated 30.03.2013 stating that the complaint was registered in NCR No.440/2006 and all the records pertaining to said complaint were destroyed upon the directions issued by Assistant Commissioner of Police. Not being satisfied with the said response, Respondent no. 2 had preferred appeal under Section 19 of RTI Act, 2005. On 09.10.2014 the first appellate authority had issued direction to the petitioner, who by then had assumed the charge, to furnish copy of the order of the Assistant Commissioner at whose instance the records were destroyed. In response the petitioner herein seemed to have given explanation/justification vide his communication dated 07.08.2014. The first appeal was filed on 24.04.2013 and since no order was passed pursuant thereof, the second appeal was filed on 11.07.2013. Pursuant to show cause notice issued by the second appellate authority, an explanation was offered by the petitioner herein as per - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31893 WP No. 8154 of 2018 Annexure-E, stating that upon the direction/order issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru South, the records including the complaint/information sought for by the Respondent no. 2 were destroyed and that the petitioner herein had sought for copy of the said order by forwarding the communications 12.02.2013, 12.06.2014, 05.07.2014, and 08.08.2014. Yet there was no response or furnishing of the said order by the office of the Assistant Commissioner. Copies of the said communications were also enclosed with the said explanation dated 07.08.2014. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits without adverting to the explanation given by the petitioner supported by the documents referred to above, the first respondent passed the impugned order holding that the petitioner has not given any acceptable explanation nor he has been able to furnish the information as sought for and had proceeded to impose the penalty as noted above which, suffers from perversity. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, refers to para 2 of the impugned order, which in turn has extracted the order dated 09.10.2014 passed by the 1st - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31893 WP No. 8154 of 2018 Respondent-Commission. Referring to the said portion of the impugned order, he submits that the Commission after receipt of the explanation given by the petitioner as per Annexure-E dated 07.08.2014 had further directed the petitioner herein to identify the person responsible for loss of the documents and to submit a report thereof within 90 days. He submitted that since no action was taken by the petitioner pursuant to said order, the Commissioner has noted that the explanation given by the petitioner was not acceptable. Therefore, he submits that the order passed is justifiable. 6. Heard. Perused the records. 7. The facts reveal that the information sought by the Respondent no.2 pertains to certain complaint purported to have been given by one Shivamma as far back as in the year 2005. As could be seen from Annexure-B, the predecessor in the office of the petitioner had given the reply/response within 30 days of the application that is on 30.03.2013, informing about destruction of the records. What has transpired thereafter is the process to obtain information regarding the reason and the basis for destruction of record and not the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31893 WP No. 8154 of 2018 original information as sought for. The matter seem to have been taken at a different tangent. The petitioner admittedly assumed the office on and after September 2013 and he has been fastened with the responsibility of identifying the persons who are responsible for destroying the records as per the direction issued by the Assistant Commissioner for destruction of the record. 8. In view of the above facts and the explanation given by the petitioner, it would amount to asking for something impossible from a person who has come into office after 10 years after the incident. In the circumstances, the first respondent is not justified in rejecting the explanation given by the petitioner and proceeding to impose the penalty. Accordingly writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SNB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26