High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10382 of 2022 Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Utkarsh Birla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kunal Ravi Singh Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Legal Reasoning
(9) The said Show Cause Notice cannot prima facie be said to be without jurisdiction. There is no good ground to interfere in this petition by this Court at this stage. It is settled law that a Show Cause Notice can only be interfered with if it has been issued completely without jurisdiction.
Arguments
(1) Heard Shri Utkarsh Birla, for the petitioners who are working as S.I. (Ministerial)/Clerk in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Kushi Nagar and Shri Kunal Ravi Singh, for the Respondent no.2 and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos.1, 3, 4 & 5. (2) This petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the Show Cause Notice dated 06.03.2022 issued to the petitioners and consequential proceedings against them. The petitioners have made a further prayer that a direction be issued to the respondents not to make any deduction from their salary in pursuance of Show Cause Notice. (3) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Petitioner no.1 was appointed as a Constable (Ministerial) in U.P. Police on 12.05.1997 and subsequently promoted to as A.S.I. (Ministerial) on 01.01.2020. He has never been appointed or designated as Public Information Officer or Assistant Public Information Officer under the Right to Information Act. He is posted only as Clerk in the correspondence branch. The Petitioner no.2 was appointed as Constable (Ministerial) in U.P. Police on 12.02.1998 and was subsequently promoted as Sub Inspector on 04.03.2021. He is posted as Head Clerk (Correspondence Branch), in the office of Superintendent of Police, Kushi Nagar. An application was filed on 05.03.2019 by one Smt. Sangeeta Yadav widow of Late Shiv Dayal Yadav regarding the information on her application for compassionate appointment under Dying in Harness Rules which was received by post on 12.03.2019 by the Public Information Officer, Kushi Nagar. The said application was forwarded to the Assistant Public Information Officer/Circle Officer on 13.03.2019 and thereafter allegedly forwarded to the Petitioner no.1 for providing relevant information. It is the case of the petitioners that he had not received any such application. (4) When such application dated 05.03.2019 was not replied to, Smt. Sangeeta Yadav filed another application it was received in the office of the Public Information Officer on 10.06.2019. The second RTI application was allegedly forwarded to the Petitioner no.1 on 11.06.2019 but the petitioner had gone on Medical Leave and was absent from the office for 73 days with effect from June to September, 2019. Even after his return also he was not keeping well. The Petitioner no.2 was working in place of Petitioner no.1 and he provided the required information to the Assistant Public Officer/Circle Officer, Sadar, Kushi Nagar on 09.01.2020 under his signature which was subsequently forwarded to the Public Information Officer and given to Smt. Sangeeta Yadav thereafter. There was a delay in replying to the RTI application. (5) Smt. Sangeeta Yadav filed an Appeal No.2297/A/2019 [Smt. Sangeeta Yadav Vs. Public Information Officer in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Kushi Nagar], before the State Information Commission, under Section 19 of the Act of 2005 which was decided on 22.03.2021 and liability was imposed upon the Public Information Officer in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Kushi Nagar for payment of Rs.25,000/- as penalty for providing delayed information. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the liability was fixed on the PIO personally in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Kushi Nagar who instituted an inquiry thereafter. In the two Enquiry Reports submitted by the Assistant Public Officer found the petitioners guilty for not providing the information in time to the Assistant Public Officer. In pursuance thereof a Show Cause Notice has now been issued to the petitioners as to why recovery of Rs.12,500/- be not made from each of them for providing information with delay which led to penalty being imposed by the State Information Commission on the Public Information Officer in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Kushi Nagar. (6) It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are not Public Information Officers or even Assistant Public Information Officers and they cannot be fastened with liability to pay the penalty. The State Information Commission in its order dated 22.03.2021 had not given liberty to the Public Information Officer to pass on the liability to his Subordinate Officers. The State Information Commission having held Public Information Officer personally responsible, he cannot change or modify the order passed against him by the State Information Commission. (7) Shri Kunal Ravi Singh, appearing for the Respondent no.2 has pointed out that under Section 5 Subsection (V) in the Act if such information which is required to be given by the Public Information Officer through RTI, is to be derived from some other Officers/Ministerial Staff then such of other Officers/Staff would also be treated as Public Information Officers. (8) This Court has considered both the Inquiry Reports which have been filed as Annexures to the petition and finds that the petitioners were given opportunity of hearing in the said Inquiry before Show Cause Notices were issued.
Decision
(10) This petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file their reply to such Show Cause Notice within a period of two weeks from today indicating therein as to how they were not responsible for providing information or that they were not responsible for the delay in providing such information to the Assistant Public Information Officer/Circle Officer, Sadar, District Kushi Nagar. (11) If such reply is submitted the same shall be considered by the Competent Authority in accordance with law who shall pass appropriate reasoned and speaking order thereon only thereafter. Order Date :- 20.7.2022 PAL Digitally signed by NARESH PAL Date: 2022.07.21 09:25:36 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad