S.A. Bobde JUDGMENT
S.A. Bobde, J.
1. Rule returnable forthwith.
2. Heard by consent.
3. The petitioner is Public Information Officer appointed as such under the Right to Information Act, 2005. She has challenged the order dated 27.7.2007 passed by the Goa Information Commission holding her responsible for furnishing incorrect, incomplete or misleading information to the respondent No. 2 and also for providing false information.
4. The respondent No. 2 had sought the following information from the P.I.O. under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
| | Information sought by the Complainant | Information provided by the Opponent |
| III | 186/c letter from GPSC No. COM/1 /1/15/1705/754 dated 03/11/2006 | N.A. |
| XIV | 146/c letter No. COM/11/11/15(1)05 dated 12/06/2006 regarding filling up the post of Curator clarify | N.A. |
| XV | 117/c letter from GPSC to communicate seniority list of Librarian may be sent if not then kindly clarify under what provision of Rule the department to fill up the post by promotion. | N.A. |
| 1 | Copy of the Seniority list of the Common Cadre of the Librarian post from the Directorate of Education, Technical Education and Higher Education. | N.A. |
| 2. | Why the post of curator was not filled | N.A. |
Item 1,2 & 3 are relevant for a decision of this case.
5. Initially the petitioner wrote the words N.A. against all the 3 requisitions i.e. not available. Thereafter, the second respondent sought clarification as to what the petitioner made clear by the abbreviation Not Available. The petitioner clarified that it means Not Available. As to other two questions the petitioner clarified by stating I don't know. The respondent No. 2 took the matter to the Goa Information Commission.
6. The Goa Information Commission has held the petitioner guilty of furnishing incomplete, misleading and false information and has imposed the penalty of Rs. 5,000/-which is liable to be deducted from the petitioner's salary from the month of August 2007. This order is under challenge. Mr. Lobo, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Goa Information Commission (hereinafter referred as Commission) has wrongly held that the petitioner provided incomplete and misleading information on the 3 points.
7. The Commission has with reference to question No. 1 held that the petitioner has provided incomplete and misleading information by giving the clarification above. As regards the point No. 1 it has also come to the conclusion that the petitioner has provided false information in stating that the seniority list is not available. It is not possible to comprehend how the Commission has come to this conclusion. This conclusion could have been a valid conclusion if some party would have produced a copy of the seniority list and proved that it was in the file to which the petitioner Information Officer had access and yet she said Not Available. In such circumstances it would have been possible to uphold the observation o........