The Karnataka High Court has clarified that the State Information Commission lacks the authority to direct disciplinary action against government officials who are not Public Information Officers under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The judgment reinforces the limited scope of Section 20(2) and the procedural safeguards required before imposing consequences on senior bureaucrats.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from an application filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 by Respondent No.2, a former contract employee of Mysore Sugar Company Limited, seeking details on the utilization of government grants for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the company responded on 22.06.2021, providing partial information and noting that the utilization certificate had not yet been submitted to the State Government.
Key Facts
- Respondent No.2 filed an RTI application on 08.02.2021 seeking information on VRS fund utilization.
- The PIO responded on 22.06.2021, disclosing available details but stating the utilization certificate was pending.
- Dissatisfied, Respondent No.2 filed an appeal with the Chief Administrative Officer of Mysore Sugar Company Limited.
- The appeal was rejected, prompting Respondent No.2 to approach the Karnataka Information Commission (Respondent No.1) on 14.07.2021.
- On 13.09.2022, the Commission directed the PIO to furnish additional information.
- On 20.10.2022, the Commission observed that the petitioner (Secretary to Government) had not reported compliance with the 13.09.2022 order and directed him to initiate disciplinary action against the Managing Director of Mysore Sugar Company Limited.
- The 20.10.2022 order was received by the petitioner on 23.11.2022 at 04:00 p.m.
- On the same day (23.11.2022), the Commission passed the impugned order directing the Chief Secretary of Karnataka to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner and submit an action taken report within 30 days.
- The petitioner, Sri Pankaj Kumar Pandey, I.A.S., was serving as Secretary to the Government, Commerce and Industries Department (MSME & Mines), and also held additional charge of Sugar and Textile Departments.
- The petitioner is not a Public Information Officer (PIO) nor an appellate authority under the RTI Act.
Procedural History
- 08.02.2021: RTI application filed by Respondent No.2.
- 22.06.2021: PIO’s initial response.
- 14.07.2021: First appeal filed with Chief Administrative Officer.
- 13.09.2022: Karnataka Information Commission directs PIO to provide additional information.
- 20.10.2022: Commission directs petitioner to initiate disciplinary action against Managing Director; order received on 23.11.2022.
- 23.11.2022: Impugned order passed by Commission directing Chief Secretary to initiate disciplinary action against petitioner and submit action taken report within 30 days.
- 25.11.2022: Writ Petition No. 25483 of 2022 filed before the Karnataka High Court.
- 09.06.2026: Judgment delivered by Justice M.G.S. Kamal.
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner’s Position:
- He is neither a Public Information Officer nor an appellate authority under the RTI Act.
- Section 20(2) only permits the Commission to recommend disciplinary action against PIOs or appellate authorities, not against senior bureaucrats like himself.
- The Commission has no power to direct the Chief Secretary to initiate action against him.
- No opportunity of hearing was afforded before the impugned order.
Respondent No.1’s Position:
- The Commission has inherent power to ensure compliance with its orders under the RTI Act.
- Non-compliance with its directions warrants corrective measures, including disciplinary action against responsible officers.
- The order was passed in the interest of effective implementation of the Act.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Quashing of the order dated 23.11.2022.
- A declaration that the Commission’s directions under Section 20(2) to initiate disciplinary action against him are ultra vires.
- A direction that he shall not be compelled to act upon the orders dated 13.09.2022 and 20.10.2022.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 20(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 empowers the State Information Commission to direct the Chief Secretary of a State Government to initiate disciplinary action against a senior bureaucrat who is neither a Public Information Officer nor an appellate authority, and whether it authorizes the Commission to demand submission of an action taken report.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the plain language of Section 20(2), which restricts the Commission’s power to making a recommendation for disciplinary action only against a Central or State Public Information Officer or an appellate authority. He argued that as a Secretary to Government, he holds no statutory role under the RTI Act and cannot be subjected to penalties or directives under this provision. He further invoked the principle of audi alteram partem, emphasizing that no opportunity of hearing was granted before the Commission issued the impugned order. He cited State of U.P. v. Raj Narain to underscore that administrative action affecting rights must be preceded by fair hearing.
For the Respondent
The Respondent argued that the Commission’s authority under the RTI Act is broad enough to ensure compliance with its orders. It contended that the power to recommend disciplinary action implies the power to monitor its implementation, and that failure to report compliance undermines the Act’s efficacy. It relied on the purposive interpretation of the Act to protect the right to information and asserted that the order was a necessary measure to enforce accountability.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a strict textual interpretation of Section 20(2) of the RTI Act. It observed that the provision explicitly limits the Commission’s power to "recommend" disciplinary action against a Public Information Officer or appellate authority who has failed to comply with statutory obligations. The Court emphasized that the language of the provision is unambiguous: it does not authorize the Commission to issue directives to any other officer, nor does it empower it to demand submission of action taken reports.
"Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act reads as under... it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him."
The Court noted that the impugned order not only directed the Chief Secretary to initiate action against the petitioner but also mandated submission of an action taken report within 30 days - a requirement nowhere contemplated in the statute. The Court held that such a directive effectively converts a recommendatory power into a coercive one, which is impermissible.
The Court further held that the petitioner, being a Secretary to Government and not a PIO or appellate authority, is outside the scope of Section 20(2). The Commission’s attempt to invoke this provision against him is legally untenable. The Court also found a clear violation of natural justice, as no opportunity to be heard was afforded to the petitioner before the order was passed.
The Respondent’s reliance on the "purposive interpretation" of the Act was rejected. The Court clarified that while the RTI Act must be interpreted to promote transparency, such interpretation cannot override the express limitations of statutory provisions. The Commission’s role is to adjudicate and recommend - not to enforce or punish.
The Verdict
The writ petition was allowed. The order dated 23.11.2022 passed by the State Information Commissioner (Bench No.3) was quashed. The Court held that Section 20(2) of the RTI Act does not empower the Commission to direct disciplinary action against non-PIOs or to demand action taken reports. The Commission is at liberty to pass fresh orders under Section 20(2), but only after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and considering any response or cause shown by him.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Recommendations Are Not Directives
- Practitioners must challenge any Information Commission order that frames recommendations as mandatory directives.
- Disciplinary action can only be recommended against PIOs or appellate authorities - never against senior bureaucrats, even if they are administrative heads of public authorities.
No Action Taken Reports Permitted
- The RTI Act does not require submission of action taken reports in response to Section 20(2) recommendations.
- Any demand for such reports by Information Commissions is ultra vires and subject to quashing.
Hearing Is Non-Negotiable
- Even when acting within its statutory limits, the Commission must afford a hearing before issuing any order that affects an officer’s service rights.
- Failure to do so renders the order void under principles of natural justice, regardless of the Commission’s intent.
