The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has quashed the orders of the Central Information Commission (CIC) imposing a maximum penalty of ₹25,000 and recommending disciplinary action against Shailesh Kumar Yadav, an IPS officer who was serving as the Regional Passport Officer (RPO) and Public Information Officer (PIO) in Ghaziabad.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi, held that the Commission’s actions were marked by “undue haste” and reflected a “pre-determined approach” that traveled beyond objective adjudication.
Background of the Case
In 2006, an RTI application was filed by a respondent seeking information regarding duplicate passports and procedures. The petitioner, Shailesh Kumar Yadav, endorsed the application; however, it was initially returned by the Assistant Public Information Officer (APIO) due to a defect in the demand draft. Following resubmission, further delays occurred as the office requested a “Key Number” and “File Number.”
Aggrieved by the non-furnishing of information, the applicant filed a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act. On February 8, 2007, the CIC initiated penal action under Section 20(1) for a delay of over four months and recommended the Chief Passport Officer to hold an inquiry and take “strictest action” against the petitioner. Subsequently, on March 19, 2007, the CIC imposed the maximum penalty of ₹25,000, alleging that the deployment of police to the applicant’s residence for satisfaction verification amounted to “intimidation and defamation.”
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Counsel: Senior Advocate Sri C.B. Yadav argued that the orders were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. He contended that the CIC recommended action even before the petitioner could file an explanation to the show-cause notice. It was further argued that an inquiry report by the Chief Passport Officer, submitted on March 21, 2007, attributed the delay to “severe shortage of staff” and “increased work burden,” explicitly stating that no individual officer should be blamed.
Respondents’ Counsel: The counsel for the CIC maintained that there was a delay of 145 days in providing information. He argued that the penalty was mandatory under Section 20(1) for delays without reasonable cause and that the petitioner’s explanation was full of “lame excuses and abuses.” The Commission took a serious view of the petitioner’s conduct, noting he showed “scant regard” for the public and the statutory body.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court examined the scope of Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005. It noted that the power to impose a penalty is not for every delay but requires a finding that the officer acted “without any reasonable cause” or “mala fidely.”
The Bench observed:
“The Commission’s action in imposing maximum monetary penalty and recommending disciplinary action without awaiting the report, reflects a procedural impropriety and an element of arbitrariness.”
The Court highlighted disparaging remarks made by the Information Commissioner in the impugned order, where the petitioner was described as having no respect for the RTI Act. The Court remarked:
“Such observations demonstrate that respondent no.2 approached the matter with a pre-determined opinion and a mindset already hostile to the petitioner, rather than an objective assessment of the facts.”
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Manohar vs State of Maharashtra (2012), the Court emphasized that “negligence per se is not a ground on which proceedings under Section 20(2) of the Act can be invoked.” It found that the institutional inquiry report had already justified the delay as a result of infrastructure problems rather than personal misconduct.
Decision
The High Court concluded that the exercise of power under Section 20 must be “reasoned, proportionate, and preceded by a fair enquiry.” It found the CIC’s orders to be unjustified and arbitrary.
“The language used in both impugned orders travel far beyond consideration of statutory defaults under Section 20 of the RTI Act and indicates a lack of impartiality,” the Court stated.
Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the impugned orders dated February 8, 2007, and March 19, 2007, were quashed.
Case Details:
- Case Name: Shailesh Kumar Yadav Ips vs. Union Of India And Others
- Case No: WRIT-C No. 27261 of 2007
- Quorum: Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi
- Date: February 27, 2026
