MANOHAR S/O MANIKRAO ANCHULE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Citation: [2012] 12 S.C.R. 850 · Decided: 13-12-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SWATANTER KUMAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012) 12 S.C.R. 850 
MANOHAR S/O MANIKRAO ANCHULE . 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 9095 of 2012) 
DECEMBER 13, 2012 
[SWATANTER KUMAR AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] 
Right to Information Act, 2005: 
c 
s.20 - Powers of the State Information Commission to . 
impose penalty and take disciplinary action against the 
employees - Scope and ambit of - Held: State Information 
Commissions exercise quasi judicial powers - They are 
vested with wide powers including imposition of penalty or 
D taking of disciplinary action against the employees -
Provisions relating to penalty or to penal consequences have 
to be construed strictly. 
s.20(2) - Recommending disciplinary action against the 
Central/State Public Information Officer u/s. 20(2) -
E Applicability of principle of natural justice - Held: Power to 
recommend disciplinary action is a power, exercise of which 
may impose penal consequences - Recommendation itself 
vests the delinquent Public Information Officer with 
consequences which are of serious nature and can ultimately 
F produce prejudicial results and invite minor and/or major 
penalty - Thus, principles of natural justice have to be read 
into the provisions of s.20(2) - Right of hearing, even if not 
provided under a specific statute, the rules of1natural justice 
shall so demand, unless by specific law, it is excluded -
G Natural justice. 
s.20(2) -
Disciplinary action against the Public 
Information Officer- Validity- In the instant case, appeal was 
filed before the State Commission by the aggrieved applicant 
H 
850 
MANOHAR S/O MANIKRAO ANCHULE v. STATE OF 851 
MAHARASHTRA 
that he was not provided information sought for by the 
A 
appellant, the Public Information Officer - Appellant was 
informed about the hearing of appeal before the State 
Commission -
Appellant sent a fax requesting for 
adjournment on account of official reasons - On the date of 
hearing, another officer represented the appellant, however, 
B 
State Commission did not adjourn the case and rather 
decided .the appeal and also ordered disciplinary action 
against the appellant uls.20(2) - High Court upheld the order 
of State Commission - On appeal, held: The appellant was 
entitled to a hearing before an order could be passed against C 
him u/s.20(2) - If the appellant was given an opportunity and 
had appeared before the Commission, he might have been 
able to explain that there was reasonable cause and he had 
taken all reasonable steps within his power to comply with the 
provisions - None of the grounds stated uls.20(2) were 
satisfied which justified the recommendation by the 
D 
Commission of taking disciplinary action against the appellant 
- Order of State Commission and High Court set aside. 
s.20(2) - Requirement and scope of- Held: Central or 
the State Commission have no jurisdiction to add to the 
E 
exhaustive grounds of default mentioned in the provisions of 
s.20(2) - The case of default must strictly fall within the 
specified grounds of the provisions of s. 20(2) - This provision 
has to be construed and applied strictly - /ts ambit cannot be 
permitted to be enlarged at the whims of the Commission -
F 
All the attributable defaults of a Central or State Public 
Information Officer have to be without any reasonable cause 
and persistently- Burden of forming an opinion in accordance 
with the provisions of s.20(2) and principles of natural justice 
lies upon the Commission - Interpretation of Statute. 
G 
The appellant was working as Superintendent In the 
State Excise Department. He was nominated under 
Section 5 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and 
designated as the Public Information Officer. On 3rd 
H 
852 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 12 S.C.R. 
A January, 2007, respondent no.2 fifed an application under 
Section 6(1) of the Act seeking certain information. The 
appellant forwarded the said application to the concerned 
Department for collecting the information and on 19th 
January, 2007 informed respondent no.2 that his 
8 application was under process. As respondent no.2 did 
not receive information in furtherance to his application, 
he filed an appeal before the Collector, Nanded on 1st 
March, 2007, under Section 19(1) of the Act. By letter 
dated 11th April, 2007, another officer of the department 
C further wrote to respondent No.2 that since he had not 
mentioned the period for which the information was 
sought, it was not possible to supply the Information and 
requested 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.