Karnataka HC Bars Service-Record Entry For Officer Who Took Charge After RTI Reply, Leaves Deducted ₹25,000 Penalty Undisturbed

Respondent No. 3 sought information under the Right to Information Act on 9 April 2022.

The Public Information Officer at the time was Sri Renuka Prasad C., who furnished the information on 30 January 2023.

The petitioner assumed charge as Assistant Revenue Officer, Govindarajanagar, on 21 April 2023.

The State Information Commission imposed a penalty of ₹25,000 on her for delay in furnishing the information; the amount was deducted from her salary in January 2024.

She sought to quash the Commission’s order, and the High Court granted an interim stay on 25 March 2024.

The petitioner also sought to prevent the penalty from being recorded in her service records.

The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, and the dispute arose under the Right to Information Act.

However, the Court did not identify or analyse a specific provision of the Act, cite precedent, or set out a distinct statutory test governing the penalty.

Its decision rested on the chronology of the officers’ respective tenures and the petitioner’s lack of responsibility for the delay

The Court noted that the petitioner was not the Public Information Officer when the information request was made and that the information had been furnished by the former officer on 30 January 2023, before the petitioner assumed charge on 21 April 2023.

It nevertheless declined to quash the Commission’s order, noting that the penalty had already been deducted before the interim stay was granted.

Separately, because the petitioner was not responsible for the delay, the Court considered it reasonable that the penalty should not affect her service record

It directed that the imposition of the ₹25,000 penalty not be entered in the petitioner’s service records; if already entered, it must be deleted.