BALWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that under Section 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.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find merit in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant.