3.The petitioner is a retired District Educational Officer. When he was serving as Public Information Officer at Pudukottai, information was sought by one R.Rajendran, with regard to the implementation of G.O.(Ms).No.216, Finance Department, dated 22.03.1993. The petitioner herein while furnishing his reply under Right to Information Act, 2005, stated that the said Government Order is being implemented in all the schools in Pudukottai District. For furnishing such an information, charge memo was issued against the petitioner on 29.10.2013. The petitioner gave his explanation on 22.11.2013. Enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer in his report dated 28.10.2014, gave his finding that the answer given by the petitioner cannot be said to be entirely incorrect. It is further suggested in the Enquiry report that the answer given by the petitioner could have been stated with a little more clarity. Therefore, charges was held as partly proved. The petitioner gave his further representation on 04.12.2014. However, the petitioner's defence was rejected and the first respondent passed order dated 19.07.2016, imposing the punishment of recovery of a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month for two years from the petitioner's pension. The petitioner filed Review Petition. Review Petition was also rejected on 24.03.2017. Challenging the same, this Writ Petition has been filed.
