Officers not posted during the RTI response period cannot be penalized for delayed disclosure.

Respondent No. 4 sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, on 18 June 2018, and filed a first appeal on 19 July 2018.

Neither petitioner was posted at Tahsil Dhamdha when those requests were made: petitioner No. 2 joined on 31 July 2018 and petitioner No. 1 on 16 August 2018.

Both submitted explanations to the State Information Commission, but its order dated 19 April 2021 proceeded on the basis that they had not replied and directed disciplinary proceedings; the order also imposed a penalty of ₹25,000 on them.

The petitioners challenged the order, relying on their posting records and submitted explanations.

1. Whether the Commission’s order could stand when the petitioners had submitted replies that were not considered and the posting records showed they were not in office when the RTI application and first appeal were filed.

2. Whether the penalty imposed on the petitioners was justified, including in light of the court’s finding that the information request was vague.

The Commission’s action was considered under the Right to Information Act, 2005, including Section 20(2), under which the Commission had directed initiation of disciplinary proceedings.

The Court’s reasoning applied the principles that liability must be assessed against the officer’s role and relevant period of posting, and that an order founded on an incorrect finding about whether explanations were filed cannot stand when the record establishes otherwise.

The Court also considered whether the request sufficiently identified the information sought when assessing the penalty.

The Court found that both petitioners had submitted replies and that the Commission’s finding to the contrary was unsupported by the record.

The posting details further showed that neither petitioner was posted at Dhamdha when the RTI application or first appeal was filed; accordingly, the Court held that liability for the non-supply of information could not be fastened on them.

It also found that the request lacked particulars necessary to identify the information sought and that the Commission had not considered this before imposing the penalty.

Consequential action was also quashed to the extent it related to the ₹25,000 penalty imposed on the petitioners.