Case Note & Summary
The matter pertained to a writ petition filed before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, challenging an order passed by the State Information Commission recommending disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner, who was the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur. The background involved an application filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 by respondent No.2, a social worker, on 14.11.2018, seeking information about action taken against the Principal and Teachers of Arvind Indo Public School, Parsioni. The Public Information Officer replied that the inquiry was pending. Treating this as non-supply of information, respondent No.2 filed a First Appeal on 11.01.2019 before the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, demanding information within 48 hours. The First Appellate Authority, an Incharge Deputy Education Officer, issued a notice of hearing for 04.02.2019. Before the First Appeal could be decided, respondent No.2 filed a Second Appeal on 03.04.2019 before the State Information Commission, alleging that information was not provided within the prescribed time. During the pendency of the Second Appeal, the First Appellate Authority communicated to respondent No.2 that the information was available and could be supplied. Subsequently, the State Information Commission passed an order dated 10.01.2020 recommending disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner for alleged violation of Section 19(6) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner challenged this order on two primary grounds: violation of principles of natural justice and misreading and misinterpretation of Section 20(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The High Court heard the counsel for the parties, issued Rule, and made it returnable forthwith. The provided text does not include the final reasoning or operative order of the court.
Headnote
A) Right to Information - Disciplinary Inquiry - Challenge to State Information Commission order recommending disciplinary inquiry against Education Officer - Right to Information Act, 2005, Sections 19(6), 20(2) - The petitioner challenged the order dated 10.01.2020 on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice and misinterpretation of Section 20(2). The High Court heard the matter and made Rule returnable forthwith. (Paras 3-4)
B) Right to Information - Appeal Procedure - Procedural chronology of first and second appeals - Right to Information Act, 2005, Sections 19, 20 - Respondent No.2 filed an RTI application on 14.11.2018, then First Appeal on 11.01.2019, then Second Appeal on 03.04.2019 before the State Information Commission alleging non-supply of information within prescribed time; during pendency of the Second Appeal, the First Appellate Authority communicated that information was available. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Information Commission order dated 10.01.2020 recommending disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner for alleged violation of Section 19(6) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is valid; whether the impugned order violates principles of natural justice; whether the State Information Commission misread or misinterpreted Section 20(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Law Points
- principles of natural justice
- Section 20(2) Right to Information Act
- 2005
- Section 19(6) Right to Information Act
- disciplinary inquiry recommendation by State Information Commission
- Right to Information Act
- 2005 appeal procedure
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (07) 164
Writ Petition No.667 of 2021
Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J.
B.P. Maldhure, A.V. Palshikar, V.V. Raut
Shri Chintaman Gulabrao Wanjari, Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur
1. Shri Sambhaji M. Sarkunde, State Information Commissioner; 2. Shri Chandrabhan Dhondopant Kolte; 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging order of State Information Commission recommending disciplinary inquiry against Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur for alleged violation of Section 19(6) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the State Information Commission order dated 10.01.2020 and setting aside of disciplinary inquiry recommendation.
Filing Reason
State Information Commission passed order recommending disciplinary inquiry against petitioner for alleged violation of Section 19(6) RTI Act, which petitioner challenged on grounds of natural justice and misinterpretation of Section 20(2).
Previous Decisions
State Information Commission passed order dated 10.01.2020 recommending disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner. First Appellate Authority had communicated to respondent No.2 that information was available and could be supplied.
Issues
Whether the State Information Commission order dated 10.01.2020 recommending disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner for alleged violation of Section 19(6) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is valid?
Whether the impugned order violates principles of natural justice?
Whether the State Information Commission misread or misinterpreted Section 20(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
The petitioner contended that the State Information Commission misread and misinterpreted provisions of Section 20(2) of the Right to Information Act.
Judgment Excerpts
3. The petitioner takes exception to the order dated 10.01.2020 passed by the State Information Commission recommending disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner who was holding the post of Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad Nagpur, for alleged violation of Section 19(6) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
4. The petitioner’s challenge is based on two primary submissions, one being violation of principles of natural justice and second on account of misreading and misinterpretation of provisions of Section 20(2) of the Right to Information Act.
5. ... The respondent No.2, claiming himself to be a social worker had filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 14.11.2018, seeking information about the action taken against the Principal and Teachers of Arvind Indo Public School, Parsioni.
Procedural History
Respondent No.2 filed RTI application on 14.11.2018 seeking information about action taken against Principal and Teachers of Arvind Indo Public School, Parsioni. Public Information Officer replied that inquiry was pending. Respondent No.2 filed First Appeal on 11.01.2019 before Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, demanding information within 48 hours. First Appellate Authority (Incharge Deputy Education Officer, Primary) issued notice of hearing for 04.02.2019. Before first appeal could be decided, Respondent No.2 filed Second Appeal on 03.04.2019 before State Information Commission alleging information not provided within prescribed time. During pendency of Second Appeal, First Appellate Authority communicated that information was available and could be supplied. State Information Commission passed order dated 10.01.2020 recommending disciplinary inquiry against petitioner for alleged violation of Section 19(6) RTI Act. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.667 of 2021 challenging that order. High Court issued Rule and made it returnable forthwith; final outcome not available in provided text.
Acts & Sections
- Right to Information Act, 2005: 19(6), 20(2)
