Penalty cannot be imposed on Public Information Officer for delays caused by another department.

Respondent No. 3 filed an RTI application on 22.03.2018 with the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board (CECB).

The PIO responded within four days, stating the department did not possess the information and advised the applicant to seek it from the Government.

On appeal, the Appellate Authority of CECB, with the consent of Respondent No. 3, transferred the application to the State Government (CSHED) on 24.04.2018.

The CSHED eventually provided the documents on 05.03.2019 after charging a fee.

Despite the transfer happening within the statutory period, the State Information Commission (CSIC) passed an order on 16.02.2021 holding the CECB PIO liable for financial loss (due to the delay exceeding 30 days) and directed recovery of the penalty from the petitioners.

The petitioners challenged this recovery order.

Whether the petitioners (CECB) could be held liable for a penalty when the delay in providing information occurred at the level of the transferee department (CSHED).

Whether the impugned order imposing a penalty was sustainable in the absence of providing the petitioners a due opportunity of hearing.

Section 7(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which mandates the disposal of requests within thirty days.

Fundamental principles of Natural Justice, specifically the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem), before the imposition of a penalty or adverse financial recovery.

The Court observed that the PIO of CECB acted promptly, passing an initial order within four days of the application.

The Appellate Authority also decided the appeal and transferred the matter to the relevant department (CSHED) with the applicant's consent within 30 days of the appeal filing.

The record indicated that the delay in providing the information (until March 2019) was attributable solely to the CSHED, not the petitioners.

Therefore, the Court reasoned that the CSIC's decision to penalize the petitioners was factually misplaced.

Furthermore, the Court found that the CSIC failed to grant the petitioners an opportunity of hearing before directing the recovery of financial loss, rendering the order procedurally flawed.

The High Court set aside and quashed the order dated 16.02.2021 (Annexure P-1) to the extent that it imposed a penalty or recovery against the petitioners.

The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.