Shailesh Kumar Yadav Ips vs Union Of India And Others

AFR
Reserved on 28.01.2026
Delivered on 27.02.2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 27261 of 2007
Shailesh Kumar Yadav Ips
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union Of India And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : C.B. Yadav, Nisheeth Yadav, Rajesh
Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., S.C., Santosh Kumar Mishra,
Vinay Kumar Singh
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.
(Per Swarupama Chaturvedi J.)
1. Heard Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Santosh
Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondents concerned and
Sri Vinay Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1,
Union of India.
2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, seeking reliefs against the orders passed under the Right to
Information Act, 2005. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order
or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated
08.02.2007 and 19.03.2007 passed by Dr O. P. Kejriwal, Information
Commissioner, Central Information Commission. The petitioner further
seeks issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents not to give effect to the aforesaid orders
dated 08.02.2007 and 19.03.2007, so far as they relate to the petitioner.
The petitioner also prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus directing the respondents to drop the entire
proceedings initiated against the petitioner in pursuance of the above
mentioned order dated 19.03.2007.

WRIC No. 27261 of 2007
2
The brief fact of the matter is that at the relevant time, the Petitioner, an
3.
IPS officer was serving on deputation as the Regional Passport Officer
(RPO), as well as Public Information Officer (PIO) in Ghaziabad. On
26.03.2006, respondent no.4, submitted an application under the Right to
Information Act, 2005, seeking some information regarding duplicate
passports, submission forms, procedures and time limits. The Petitioner
endorsed the application on the same day, however, the application was
returned to the applicant on 14.06.2006, by the Assistant Public
Information Officer (APIO) due to the reason that the accompanying
demand draft was drawn in favour of "Public Information, Ghaziabad"
rather than the "Public Information Officer read with Passport Officer".
Thereafter Respondent No. 4, resubmitted the application with the
corrected draft on 26.06.2006. The Petitioner marked it to "PRO-I and the
APIO, on 04.08.2006, directed the applicant to furnish a "Key Number"
and "File Number," stating that the website could not be operated without
these details. Aggrieved by this non-furnishing of information respondent
no.4 filed a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act with the Central
Information Commission (CIC), which has resulted into impugned orders
challenged before this court in this petition.
4. The impugned order dated 08.02.2007 records that the information
required by respondent no.4 has already been furnished by the petitioner
vide letter dated 19.12.2006 and two weeks time was sought from the
Commission to resolve the issue with the complainant, which got expired
on 24.01.2007, however the PIO and RPO Ghaziabad did not produce any
note of satisfaction. The order further records that the Commission
decided to initiate penal action against the PIO under section 20(1) of the
RTI Act 2005 for the delay of more than four months in providing the
information, for which the penalty notice is being issued separately. With
this observation the Central Information Commissioner passed the order
dated 08.02.2007,where CIC made recommendation to the Chief Passport
Officer and Joint Secretary, (CPV Division), Ministry of External Affairs
to hold the enquiry into the matter and take strictest action against
Regional Passport Officer, Ghaziabad under the intimation to the
Commission at the earliest and in no case later than 31.03.2007.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a matter for fact
5.

WRIC No. 27261 of 2007
3
that the impugned orders have been passed after hearing the petitioner but
at the same time it is passed in complete violation of the principles of
natural justice. He further submitted that the impugned order dated
08.02.2007 was passed arbitrarily and with mala fide intentions, which
recommended the action against petitioner even before the petitioner files
his explanation to the show cause issued to him regarding penalty
imposition, which is also for the same allegation due to which the
recommendation to the government is made to take action against
petitioner in a time bound matter. Learned counsel further submitted that
the impugned order dated 19.03.2007 is also bad in law as the CIC has
failed to consider the explanation offered by the petitioner against the
show cause notice while passing the order for imposing the maximum
amount of penalty against the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel argued that the petitioner, by utilizing the "State Level
Coordination Committee" guidelines, which allow RPOs to coordinate
with the Local Intelligence Unit (LIU), instructed the Deputy
Superintendent of Police (LIU) to approach the applicant regarding his
satisfaction with the information provided. An LIU Sub-Inspector visited
the applicant, who subsequently sent a letter to the CIC on 14.01.2007,
stating that he had received the information and the controversy was
resolved, subject to certain conditions regarding the improvement of the
Passport Office's attitude. He further submitted that on 06.01.2007 the
letter was sent by respondent no.4 to the concerned registrar of the
Central Information Commission, bringing to his notice that information
sought by the respondent has been received by him, and as such, as
requested by the petitioner, the controversy has been resolved.
Learned counsel also argued regarding imposition of penalty, and
7.
submitted that the petitioner replied to the show-cause notice on
26.02.2007, however, the CIC, vide the impugned order dated
19.03.2007, imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-, which is severe penalty
and observed incorrectly that there is deployment of police to the
applicant's residence which is amounted to intimidation and defamation,
and thereafter recommended disciplinary action by the Ministry of
External Affairs. He contends that the directions to the concerned
department to hold enquiry was not desirable on the part of the

WRIC No. 27261 of 2007
4
Commission to proceed against the petitioner under section 20(1) of the
Act of 2005 without waiting the report of the enquiry which was directed
to be conducted by the Chief Passport Officer. He has reiterated that the
order imposing penalty vide order dated 19.03.2007 was passed by the
CIC without waiting the report from the Chief Passport Officer who was
the highest authority of the office occupied by the petitioner at the
relevant time.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the enquiry report and
argued that the Chief Passport Officer has already held the enquiry and
submitted its report on 21.03.2007. The report stated that if any mistake
has been committed, it was on account of severe shortage of staff,
increased work burden and continue pressure to clear the back-log of
Passports in the office of Regional Passport Officer, Ghaziabad. He has
further contended that the report clearly states that no officer can be
blamed, and therefore, the decision taken by the Central Information
Commission to impose penalty upon the petitioner was not advisable, The
report further demonstrated that the office of Regional Passport Officer,
Ghaziabad is already overburdened as it was receiving about 400
applications for issuing passport every day, and if any bonafide mistake
has been done, the same cannot be treated any misconduct because it is
neither deliberate nor intentional.
9. Learned counsel argued that the CIC did not indicate and advert as to
how the petitioner is liable for delay caused therein and if the delay is
caused by the machinery deployed therein, the petitioner cannot be
blamed and no penalty can be imposed against him, especially when the
enquiry report demonstrates that it was the situation which was
responsible for the delay and no individual was to be held liable. Passing
the impugned order to impose penalty without even waiting for the last
date to conclude the enquiry as per its own order, indicates the element of
malice, unfairness and arbitrariness.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in a separate
10.
matter, respondent nos. 2 and 3, who was the same person, had passed an
order dated 23.01.2009 imposing a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- upon the
petitioner. He further stated that the said order came to be passed at a time
when the petitioner, after completing his deputation in the Passport

WRIC No. 27261 of 2007
5
Office, was serving at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New
Delhi. By the said order, the Director (Admin), All India Institute of
Medical Sciences, New Delhi was directed to ensure compliance by
recovering the penalty amount of Rs. 25,000/- in two installments from
the salary of the petitioner and to remit the same to the Commission by
way of demand draft to the Assistant Registrar, Central Information
Commission, with a further direction that the first installment should
reach the Commission by 10.03.2009 and the second installment by
10.04.2009.
11. The petitioner assailed the above-mentioned order before this court in
Writ C No. 9948 of 2009, wherein this court observed that there was no
finding of any mala fide conduct on the part of the petitioner qua the
alleged delay in supply of information. Though this court declined to
interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India to set aside the order but the penalty was reduced from Rs.
25,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. Against this order, the petitioner preferred Special
Leave to Appeal (C) No. 10430 of 2009 before the Supreme Court, which
was allowed by the order dated 07.07.2014. The Supreme Court observed
that while the High Court had reduced the penalty, it had also recorded
that the delay occurred on account of proper arrangements not having
been made in the office regarding the records of applications received and
placed before the petitioner, and that such delay was not alleged to be
deliberate. The Supreme Court, being satisfied that the imposition of
penalty was not justified, set aside the order of the High Court as well as
the penalty order passed by the Central Information Commission. Learned
counsel asserted that the similar order by the same person against the
petitioner, demonstrates that respondent CIC, Mr Kejriwal, was unfairly
and arbitrarily targeting the petitioner and was misusing the office of the
Central Information Commission in a high-handed manner.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 and 3
placed reliance upon the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent
no.2 and 3 and submitted that there was a delay of 145 days in providing
information. He argued that the penalty imposed was not extreme penalty
and the respondent no.2 under the RTI Act, could have imposed heavier
penalty. He took the stand that the decision to impose penalty was taken

WRIC No. 27261 of 2007
6
after giving full opportunity to the petitioner and the petitioner
participated in the penalty proceedings before the Commission on
11.03.2007. He has further contended that respondent no.2 was not
satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner and by a detailed and
speaking order dated 19.03.2007 imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- on the
petitioner.
As per learned counsel for respondents, respondent no.2 took serious
13.
view of the defamatory statements made by the petitioner and the scant
regard shown to the members of the public and statutory body. He placed
emphasis on paragraph 11 of the penalty order dated 19.03.2007, where
respondent number two clearly observe as under :
“ The Commission was mortified to observe that the passport officer and
PIO, Shailesh Kumar Yadav, happens to be an officer from the Indian
police services does not have any respect for the RTI act 2005, not does
he have any respect for the members of the public or statutory body like
the Central information commission. It is because of such officials that
the general public perception about our bureaucracy being insensitive
and high-handed gains strength.”
He further submitted that after above observation, the impugned order
14.
recorded that the reply of the show cause notice did not have explanation,
but it was full of lame excuses and abuses. He further argued that the PIO
was responsible under the RTI Act and the error of subordinate officer did
not absolve the PIO of the duty to ensure timely response. He further
argued that the reasons given for delay were lame and the penalty was
mandatory under Section 20(1) for delay without reasonable cause.
15. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent, when read with the
tenor of the impugned orders, revealed a pre-determined approach. It was
urged that the observations recorded therein traveled beyond objective
adjudication and reflected a clear mindset, which was averse to the
petitioner. He further contended that the undue haste with which the
orders were passed, without proper appreciation of the material on record,
strengthened the apprehension of bias. He emphasized particularly on the
fact that the authority invoked both facets of Section 20, namely, the
imposition of penalty as well as the recommendation to the Government

WRIC No. 27261 of 2007
7
for action against petitioner, without awaiting the enquiry report or expiry
of the last date given for providing the report. According to the counsel of
the petitioner, such simultaneous recourse, at a premature stage,
demonstrates undue anxiety to proceed against the petitioner. It was thus
submitted that cumulatively these circumstances, give rise to a reasonable
likelihood of unfairness and vitiated the decision-making process,
rendering the impugned orders arbitrary and unsustainable in law.
16. On the basis of the pleadings and submissions, the issue for
consideration before this Court is whether imposition of the maximum
penalty in the facts of the case was justified along with recommendation
to the government to take action within a negligible time gap, and it is
also to be determined that whether the question of penalty without first
considering the enquiry report is legally justified.
17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon
careful perusal of the pleadings and documents on record, the core
controversy appears as the power of the Commission to impose penalty
and make recommendations, and therefore, we proceed to examine
Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which reads as under:
“ 20. Penalties. (1) Where the Central Information Commission or the
State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding
any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public
Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case
may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an
application for information or has not furnished information within the
time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the
request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or
misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of
the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it
shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till
application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total
amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees;
Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public
Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable
opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:

WRIC No. 27261 of 2007
8
Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and
diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State
Public Information Officer, as the case may be.
(2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information
Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or
appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the
State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any
reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for
information or has not furnished information within the time specified
under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for
information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading
information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request
or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall
recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information
Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under
the service rules applicable to him.”
18. Upon a careful reading of the above provision, it becomes evident that
the power to impose penalty is not for every delay or deficiency in
furnishing information. The provision mandates that the Commission
must first form an opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or
the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has acted
without reasonable cause in refusing to receive the application, in failing
to furnish information within the stipulated time, or has acted mala fide,
knowingly furnished incorrect or misleading information, destroyed the
requested information, or otherwise obstructed its disclosure. The
existence of one of these jurisdictional facts is a necessary condition for
the imposition of penalty.
Further, the first proviso incorporates the principles of natural justice
19.
by requiring that a reasonable opportunity of hearing be afforded before
any penalty is imposed. It is a matter of fact that the second proviso
places the burden upon the concerned officer to demonstrate that he acted
reasonably and diligently. Thus, while the statute shifts the evidentiary
burden on petitioner, it does not dispense with the foundational
requirement that the Commission must record a clear and reasoned
finding as to absence of reasonable cause or presence of mala fide

WRIC No. 27261 of 2007
9
conduct and the enquiry report, which got submitted timely, could have
been used for the determination of the reason for delay.
Moving further, Sub-section (2) of section 20 operates in related yet in
20.
a distinct circumstance. Sub-section (1) contemplates monetary penalty
for specified lapses, sub-section (2) empowers the Commission to
recommend disciplinary action where the failure is not only without
reasonable cause but also persistent. The expression recommend used in
sub-section (2) is also significant, as it indicates that the Commission does
not itself initiate or impose disciplinary punishment, but merely sets in
motion the process under the applicable service rules.
Therefore, we are of the considered view that Section 20 provides a
21.
mechanism, that is, imposition of monetary penalty upon satisfaction of
the statutory conditions, and recommendation for disciplinary action in
cases of persistent and unjustified professional default. The exercise of
such power must necessarily be preceded by objective consideration of
the explanation offered and supported by cogent reasons reflecting
application of mind.
22. Recommendations under Section 20 is intended to guide the
administration and facilitate corrective action, however, when expressed
in mandatory and time-bound language, they risk assuming the character
of a binding direction. The statute does not empower the Commission to
issue directions that override the discretion or functions of the
administrative authorities. To make recommendations of binding nature
would be seen as extension of the Commission’s powers beyond the
statutory scheme.
23. The Supreme Court in a similar fact of the case, Manohar vs State of
Maharashtra, (2012) 13 SCC 14, discussed various aspects of Section 20
of the RTI Act 2005, and observed that:
“ 31. 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

WRIC No. 27261 of 2007
10
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 officer concerned 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. In our
considered view, 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 mala fide
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...”
24. In Manohar (supra), the Supreme Court analysed the term
“recommend” provided in Section 20 and held that:
“ 33. All the attributable defaults of a Central or State Public Information
Officer have to be without any reasonable cause and persistently. In other
words, 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”. There could be
cases where there is reasonable cause shown and the officer is able to
demonstrate that there was no persistent default on his part either in
receiving the application or furnishing the requested information. In such
circumstances, the law does not require recommendation for disciplinary
proceedings to be made. It is not the legislative mandate that irrespective
of the facts and circumstances of a given case, whether reasonable cause
is shown or not, the Commission must recommend disciplinary action

WRIC No. 27261 of 2007
11
merely because the application was not responded to within 30 days.
Every case has to be examined on its own facts...”
25. The Supreme Court in Manohar (supra) , has examined the scope and
ambit of Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and thereafter it
was held that every default on the part of a Public Information Officer
does not automatically trigger the imposition of penalty or a
recommendation for disciplinary action. While the State Information
Commission in that case was found negligence due to a delay of 73 days,
the Supreme Court held that mere negligence or delay is not a ground for
proceedings under Section 20(2). The Commission must record a
reasoned opinion that the default was both persistent and without
reasonable cause. Further, the Court emphasized that the term recommend
in Section 20(2) must be read as “may” rather than “shall,” highlighting
that the Commission is not obliged to recommend disciplinary action if
the officer is able to show reasonable cause or if the default is not
persistent. Each case must therefore be examined on its own facts, and the
Commission’s opinion must be based on objective findings rather than
assumptions or mere delay.
26. While dealing with identical issue, High Court of Punjab and Haryana
has considered the amount of penalty being Rs. 25,000/- imposed upon
the petitioner in case of Yudhister vs State Information Commission,
Haryana and Others, 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 6592 . While dealing with
the matter, the High Court has observed that it is settled principle of law
that a hammer is not to be used to swat a fly and further observed that the
petitioner appears to have not committed any act warranting disciplinary
proceedings. The penalty in that case was already recovered from the
petitioner but the disciplinary proceeding which was directed got set-aside
by the High Court.
27. Applying the above principles to the facts at hand, it is to be
determined whether orders passed by CIC and petitioner’s alleged
defaults fulfil the conditions prescribed under Section 20(1) and (2) of the
Right to Information Act, 2005. The fact of the present case clearly show
that at no stage, there was any allegation or observation supported by any
evidence, by any authority or the Central Information Commission that
there was any deliberate act or omission by the petitioner in supplying the

WRIC No. 27261 of 2007
12
information desired by the complainant. Instead, the fact finding inquiry
report has clearly given justification for the delay at institutional level,
which was more of infrastructure problem than has anything to do with
the petitioner and the report in fact clearly says that the reason for delay
shall not be assigned to any of the Officer.
28. On a careful consideration of the facts in the present case in the light
of Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the principles
enunciated by the Supreme Court in Manohar (supra), it is evident that
the imposition of penalty upon the petitioner by the Central Information
Commission vide order dated 19.03.2007 cannot be sustained. The
petitioner had replied to the show-cause notice on 26.02.2007, and the
enquiry directed to be conducted by the Chief Passport Officer was still in
progress when the Commission imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- and
recommended disciplinary action. The enquiry report, submitted on
21.03.2007, clearly establishes that any inadvertent lapses, if at all, were
attributable to severe shortage of staff, increased work pressure, and the
extraordinary volume of applications being processed daily at the
Regional Passport Office, Ghaziabad, and not due to any mala fide,
deliberate, or intentional conduct by the petitioner.
29. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, there was no
persistent default, nor was there any absence of reasonable cause, as
contemplated under Section 20(1) and (2) of the RTI Act. The
Commission’s action in imposing maximum monetary penalty and
recommending disciplinary action without awaiting the report, reflects a
procedural impropriety and an element of arbitrariness. In view of the
statutory scheme and settled judicial principles, the penalty imposed on
the petitioner was unjustified, especially when the complainant has later
send the letter stating that he has received the required information.
Close scrutiny of the impugned order reveals that penalty order
30.
reveals that respondent no. 2 and 3 had already formed a prejudiced view
against the petitioner even before a proper enquiry could be conducted. In
paragraph 11 of the order dated 19.03.2007, respondent no. 2 described
the petitioner in highly disparaging terms, noting that he does not have
any respect for the members of the public or statutory body like the
Central Information Commission, and further attributing to him the cause

WRIC No. 27261 of 2007
13
of public perception that bureaucracy is insensitive and high-handed.
Such observations demonstrate that respondent no.2 approached the
matter with a pre-determined opinion and a mindset already hostile to the
petitioner, rather than an objective assessment of the facts.
The order imposing penalty dated 19.03.2007 has also observed in
31.
paragraph 13 that the Commission only wishes that it had the powers to
dismiss the services of such ill-behaved, bureaucrats, and direct the
foreign secretary to initiate disciplinary proceeding immediately on
receipt of this order, against the PIO and Passport Officer, Ghaziabad,
Shailesh Kumar Yadav. Proceeding to determine the penalty and also
recommending action to the Government without awaiting the completion
of the enquiry undermines the procedural safeguards enshrined in the
statute.
32. The language used in both impugned orders travel far beyond
consideration of statutory defaults under Section 20 of the RTI Act and
indicates a lack of impartiality, reflecting that the penalty and disciplinary
recommendation were influenced by bias and personal disapprobation,
rather than grounded in reasoned findings. Such conduct may give rise to
a reasonable apprehension of bias or pre-judgment, thereby offending the
principles of natural justice. Fairness, and due consideration of evidence
are indispensable before any punitive or consequential action is taken.
33. Further, the order dated 07.07.2014 passed by the Supreme Court in
Shailesh Kumar Yadav vs Union of India and Others, Special Leave to
Appeal (C) No. 10430 of 2009, demonstrates that there is no allegation or
observation for deliberate act or omission on the part of the petitioner, and
therefore the respondent nos. 2 and 3 are not justified to impose penalty
on the petitioner. Similar order is being passed against petitioner by same
respondent officer in its order dated 19.03.2007 impugned in the present
case and, therefore, the rational of the Supreme Court’s order in Special
Leave to Appeal (C) No. 10430 of 2009 applies to this case as well and
the impugned penalty order is not justified.
34. We are of the considered view that Section 20 of the RTI Act confers
power to impose a penalty on officers who deliberately obstruct or delay
the supply of information, however, the exercise of this power must be

WRIC No. 27261 of 2007
14
reasoned, proportionate, and preceded by a fair enquiry. Issuing the
maximum penalty in tandem with a recommendation for Government
action within a negligible time gap suggests undue haste and raises
concerns of arbitrariness. While the Commission is entrusted with
enforcement, it must ensure that its decisions are grounded in careful
consideration of facts, statutory limits, and procedural fairness. The
imposition of penalty and related recommendations must not appear
rushed, prejudged, or compromise the statutory safeguards and the rule of
law.
35. For the foregoing reasons, having regard to the statutory scheme
under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the enquiry report
of the Chief Passport Officer, and the circumstances demonstrating bias
and pre-determined opinion on the part of respondent no. 2, this Court is
satisfied that order dated 08.02.2007 and order dated 19.03.2007 passed
by the Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission were
unjustified, arbitrary, and contrary to law. Consequently, both the
impugned orders dated 08.02.2007 and 19.03.2007 are quashed.
36. Thus this writ petition stands allowed as above with no order as to
cost.
(Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)
February 27, 2026
#Vikram/-
Digitally signed by :-
VIKRAM GUPTA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Digitally signed by :-
VIKRAM GUPTA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad