CHANDER KANTA Vs. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a retired Teacher. She filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") in order to seek some information which was not supplied to her within the stipulated period, therefore, the petitioner filed appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act to the First Appellate Authority. Since there was no response to the appeal within the period provided under Section 19(6) of the Act, therefore, the petitioner filed the second appeal to the State Information Commissioner, Haryana (SIC). One day before the date of hearing, the petitioner was provided the information and on the date of hearing, it was ordered by the SIC that the office of the SPIO -cum -Deputy Superintendent of the District Elementary Education was found responsible for delay and as such, show cause notice was issued under Section 20(1) of the Act as to why penal action be not taken against him. The SPIO appeared before the SIC in pursuance of the show cause notice and admitted his fault and tendered unqualified apology for the delay caused, which was of more than 100 days but vide order dated 16.06.2014, SIC warned the SPIO to be more careful in future and the proceedings issued by the show cause notice were dropped.

(2.) The only argument raised by the petitioner is that there is no jurisdiction with the SIC to let off the erring officer with a warning only as according to her, the scheme of the Act provides either to award punishment of Rs.250/ - per day or to award no punishment. In support of his submission, he has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Sanjay Hindwan vs. State Information Commission and others, CWP No.640 of 2012 -D, decided on 24.08.2012.

(3.) Counsel for the respondents has failed to cite any law in this regard to counter the argument raised by the petitioner regarding imposition of penalty, which cannot be awarded to the extent of warning. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.