H.S. SATISH BABU PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER Vs. SRI K.L. SRINIVASAN AND THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION REP. BY ITS STATE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, assailing the correctness of the order dated 17.6.2008 passed by the Karnataka State information Commissioner, in proceeding No. KIC:257:COM:2008, vide Annexure -B, has presented this writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought to direct the respondent not to deduct the penalty amount of Rs. 25,000/ - from the petitioner's salary.

(2.) THE first respondent herein has submitted a complaint against the petitioner before the second respondent under Section 18(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 stating that, he has sought for the certified copy of the saguvali chit in respect of Sy. No. 25, Maiigundanahalli, Kengeri granted to Sri. Hanumappa from 1997 to 1999 and copy of sanction order file and inspite of making sincere efforts, petitioner has not considered the request made by first respondent for supply of the certified copies as sought in his representation and therefore, he was constrained to file the said complaint. The said complaint filed by first respondent had come up for consideration before the second respondent on 17th June 2008. The second respondent has disposed of the complaint filed by first respondent, vide Annexure -B. However, it has been specifically observed by the second respondent that, inspite of giving sufficient time of more than five months to the petitioner for providing the required information, he has failed to submit the required information. Second respondent has specifically referred about the dates and events and also the conduct of the petitioner which has compelled the second respondent to issue show cause notice not once but more than twice referring specifically, as to why penalty should not be levied on him, as provided under Section 20(1) of the Act, and inspite of that, petitioner has not cared for the same or submitted his explanation. Keeping in view of these factors and the conduct of the petitioner, the second respondent has imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000/ - exercising his power under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and directed the petitioner to pay the said amount either in one lump sum with the Government Treasury under the Head of Account "0070 -60 -118 -0 -03" penalties under the Act" or by deduction from his salary beginning from the salary for the month of July 2008 payable in August 2008 at the rate of Rs. 5,000/ - for next five months and credit the deducted amount to the above Government Head of account. Being aggrieved by this portion of the directions issued by foe second respondent in his order vide Annexure -B, petitioner herein felt necessitated to present this writ petition.

(3.) AFTER careful perusal of the relevant material available on file, including the impugned order passed by the second respondent, I do not find any error of law, much less mis carriage of justice, as such, committed by the second respondent in passing the impugned order, imposing penalty of Rs. 25,000/ - on petitioner, taking into consideration the nature of the post held by him, including his conduct, it is specifically referred that, the Commissioner has also issued the show cause notice to the petitioner not once but twice, as to why penalty as envisaged under Section 20(1) of the Act, should not be levied upon him, but he has failed to submit his explanation and there has been a delay of more than five months in providing the required information and therefore, opined that, maximum penalty is leviable in the case as provided under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act. A reference has been made in the order regarding the conduct of the petitioner, he being the Tahsildar -cum -Execute Magistrate of the Taluk, he is duty bound to submit the required information and inspite of giving sufficient opportunity, he has not mend his attitude nor made any sincere efforts to appear personally and explain the difficulties and there is no intentional or deliberate delay on his part for furnishing the required information. But consistently, petitioner has failed to assist and comply the directions issued by the Commissioner and he has compelled the Commissioner to invoke Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, and therefore, there is no other option for the Commissioner to take such a stringent action which is mandatory in nature, under Section 20(1) of the Act, and accordingly, he has passed the order vide Annexure -B imposing penalty on the petitioner with directions. I do not find any error of law or illegality, as such, committed by the second respondent in imposing penalty of Rs. 25,000/ - on the petitioner for dereliction of duty and not providing necessary required information.