MP HC Quashes RTI Commission’s Inquiry and Departmental-Action Directions Against Officer for Failing to Weigh His Explanation and Later PIL Proceedings

The petitioner, then Sub-Divisional Officer, Lashkar, was subject to proceedings before the State Information Commission concerning an alleged failure, as Public Information Officer, to provide information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The request concerned a compliance report in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 19017 of 2020.

The petitioner maintained that the report was submitted to the High Court after he learned of the proceedings, and that he had explained to the Commission that the requested information was not available in his office at the relevant time

The PIL was disposed of after the Division Bench considered the compliance and inspection reports; the Supreme Court later dismissed the challenge to that disposal

The Commission’s orders dated 27 March 2024 and 29 April 2025 directed initiation of an inquiry and departmental proceedings against the petitioner.

He challenged those orders under Article 226.

Applications for intervention and impleadment were dismissed as not pressed

The Court considered the Right to Information Act, 2005, under which a Public Information Officer is required to discharge statutory duties concerning the furnishing of information, and the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, under which departmental proceedings had been directed.

Applying Article 226 and general principles of administrative law and natural justice, the Court held that a statutory authority’s decision affecting a public servant’s service interests must rest on relevant material, remain within its statutory jurisdiction, and comply with natural justice.

An allegation of delay alone does not dispense with consideration of the officer’s explanation; a direction carrying serious civil consequences cannot be issued mechanically without examining whether the circumstances disclose deliberate or culpable failure.

No judicial precedents were cited.

The Court found that the compliance report, the High Court’s subsequent consideration of the PIL, and the petitioner’s explanation about the information’s availability were material to the Commission’s assessment.

The impugned orders did not demonstrate adequate consideration of those matters and appeared to proceed on the premise of non-compliance.

In particular, the direction to initiate departmental proceedings was not shown to follow from an examination of whether the petitioner’s conduct involved deliberate or culpable failure.

The orders therefore could not be sustained.

All consequential directions issued pursuant to those orders were also quashed.