2012 (12) TMI 790 - SC - Indian Laws

RTI application to Superintendent in the State Excise Department (PIO) - information regarding the persons appointed through a reservation category, their names,joining and appointed date the report of Caste Verification Committee of the persons selected from the reserved category the persons whose caste certificate is forwarded after due date - whether there is any violation of principles of natural justice in the present case? Held that - The appellant had received the application from respondent No.2 requiring the information sought for on 3rd January, 2007. He had, much within the period of 30 days (specified under Section 7), sent the application to the concerned department requiring them to furnish the requisite information. The information had not been received. May be after the expiry of the prescribed period, another letter was written by the department to respondent No.2 to state the period for which the information was asked for. This letter was written on 11th April, 2007. To this letter, respondent No.2 did not respond at all. In fact, he made no further query to the office of the designated Public Information Officer as to the fate of his application and instead preferred an appeal before the Collector and thereafter appeal before the State Information Commission. In the meanwhile, the appellant had been transferred in the Excise Department from Nanded to Akola. If the appellant was given an opportunity and had appeared before the Commission, he might have been able to explain that there was reasonable cause and he had taken all reasonable steps within his power to comply with the provisions. The Commission is expected to formulate an opinion that must specifically record the finding as to which part of Section 20(2) the case falls in. For instance, in relation to failure to receive an application for information or failure to furnish the information within the period specified in Section 7(1), it should also record the opinion if such default was persistent and without reasonable cause. It appears that the facts have not been correctly noticed and, in any case, not in their entirety by the State Information Commission. It had formed an opinion that the appellant was negligent and had not performed the duty cast upon him. The Commission noticed that there was 73 days delay in informing the applicant and, thus, there was negligence while performing duties. If one examines the provisions of Section 20(2) in their entirety then it becomes obvious that every default on the part of the concerned officer may not result in issuance of a recommendation for disciplinary action. The case must fall in any of the specified defaults and reasoned finding has to be recorded by the Commission while making such recommendations. Negligence per se is not a ground on which proceedings under Section 20(2) of the Act can be invoked. The Commission must return a finding that such negligence, delay or default is persistent and without reasonable cause. Thus it may be concluded that the Commission, in the present case, has erred in not recording such definite finding. The appellant herein had not failed to receive any application, had not failed to act within the period of 30 days (as he had written a letter calling for information), had not malafidely denied the request for information, had not furnished any incorrect or misleading information, had not destroyed any information and had not obstructed the furnishing of the information. Besides finding that any of the stated defaults have been committed by such officer, the Commission has to further record its opinion that such default in relation to receiving of an application or not furnishing the information within the specified time was committed persistently and without a reasonable cause. Use of such language by the Legislature clearly shows that the expression shall appearing before recommend has to be read and construed as may . The appellant here had shown that the default, if any on his part, was not without reasonable cause or result of a persistent default on his part. On the contrary, he had taken steps within his power and authority to provide information to respondent No.2. It was for the department concerned to react and provide the information asked for. In the present case, some default itself is attributable to respondent No.2 who did not even care to respond to the letter of the department dated 11th April, 2007. The cumulative effect of the above discussion is that unable to sustain the order passed by the State Information Commission dated 26th February, 2008 and the judgment of the High Court under appeal. Both the judgments are set aside and the appeal is allowed - direct the State Information Commission to decide the appeal filed by respondent No.2 before it on merits and in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-provision of information under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Interpretation and application of Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
4. Legality of the State Information Commission's order recommending disciplinary action.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-provision of Information under the Right to Information Act, 2005:
The respondent filed an application on January 3, 2007, seeking information about appointments through reservation categories. The appellant, the designated Public Information Officer (PIO), forwarded the request to the concerned department and informed the respondent that the information would be provided upon receipt from the department. However, due to the lack of response and subsequent transfer of the appellant, the information was not furnished within the stipulated time, leading the respondent to file an appeal.

2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant contended that the State Information Commission's order was in violation of natural justice principles as he was not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The Commission proceeded with the hearing despite the appellant's request for adjournment due to official duties. The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of adhering to the principles of natural justice, including the right to a fair hearing and the requirement for reasoned decisions.

3. Interpretation and Application of Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005:
Section 20(1) and (2) of the Act provide for penalties and disciplinary actions against PIOs for non-compliance. The Supreme Court highlighted that the Commission must form an opinion based on specific grounds such as persistent failure to provide information without reasonable cause. The Commission's order must be reasoned and comply with natural justice principles. The Court found that the Commission's order lacked a specific finding of persistent default and reasonable cause, rendering it unsustainable.

4. Legality of the State Information Commission's Order Recommending Disciplinary Action:
The Supreme Court scrutinized the Commission's order, which directed disciplinary action against the appellant without a proper hearing and specific findings. The Court noted that the appellant had taken reasonable steps to provide the information and that the delay was partly due to the respondent's non-response to a request for additional details. The Court concluded that the Commission's order was not justified and set it aside.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the State Information Commission and the High Court, emphasizing the need for adherence to natural justice principles and specific findings under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Court directed the Commission to decide the appeal on merits, providing the appellant an opportunity to be heard. The disciplinary action initiated against the appellant was also ordered to be withdrawn.