On going through the averments contained in the petition for writ and the documents annexed thereto, it is apparent that the petitioner came to be appointed as Public Information Officer in the office of District Inspector of Schools on Ist July 2014 and prior to that, he was not the person responsible to supply the information, no penalty for the period prior to that, as such, could have been imposed upon the petitioner. The State Information Commissioner has also not taken into consideration the explanation tendered by the petitioner on 16th June 2015 wherein he, in quite specific terms, provided the details regarding his assignment to the work relating to Public Information Officer. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act 2005, the penalty is required to be imposed in person of Public Information Officer and while doing so, the State Information Commissioner must take into consideration about person holding the office concerned. In the case in hand, the State Information Commissioner, without verifying the facts as to whether the petitioner was liable to supply the information concerned on the application dated 7th September 2012, imposed a penalty in the matter of the name of the petitioner. Apparently, the same is erroneous as the petitioner during the period concerned, was not the Incharge of the Public Information Officer. The order impugned thus is apparently bad.
